STFU?
Lynx
an accurate statement. Both of these attitudes speak loads of the mentality
reigning in the midst of our "neo Gib psyche". Somehow inoculation from
these uncouth tendencies seem assured from a distance.
Jim Watt
more tea vicar?
I am surprised to hear your sensibilities are so easily offended
considering the language I've heard from ladies from that former
penal colony.
It must be the bondage sessions with the Kangaroo
PS: is Rolf Harris a national treasure, if so please bury him.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
Lynx
"Jim Watt"
>
> more tea vicar?
>
> I am surprised to hear your sensibilities are so easily offended
> considering the language I've heard from ladies from that former
> penal colony.
>
> It must be the bondage sessions with the Kangaroo
>
> PS: is Rolf Harris a national treasure, if so please bury him.
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com
It is not so much a case of "offended sensibilities", rather offence at the
shear ego centric approach. Something akin to, "you're either with me or
against me" attitude which blunts the very purpose of a newsgroup, where
info is disseminated and ideas can and should be exchanged without fear of
insults, by way of dismissing a statement or the use of foul language. Both
of these attitudes seat more comfortably in an autocratic regime.
Rolf Harris, declared "Portrait Painter of the Royal Courts", is obviously a
national treasure in the UK. He was long buried over here.
Mano
Jim Watt
from.home> wrote:
>
>"Jim Watt"
>>
>> more tea vicar?
>>
>> I am surprised to hear your sensibilities are so easily offended
>> considering the language I've heard from ladies from that former
>> penal colony.
>>
>> It must be the bondage sessions with the Kangaroo
>>
>> PS: is Rolf Harris a national treasure, if so please bury him.
>> --
>> Jim Watt
>> http://www.gibnet.com
>
>It is not so much a case of "offended sensibilities", rather offence at the
>shear ego centric approach. Something akin to, "you're either with me or
>against me" attitude which blunts the very purpose of a newsgroup, where
>info is disseminated and ideas can and should be exchanged without fear of
>insults, by way of dismissing a statement or the use of foul language. Both
>of these attitudes seat more comfortably in an autocratic regime.
Wow you can read all that into the suggestion that the people in
San Roque who have stolen the Gibraltar grant of arms and falsly
claim to be the rightful owners of all Gibraltar should desist.
I think you have been listening to that old fart in Germany with
pretentions above his hyphen, overly much; Theres a guy
down the chipshop swears he's Elvis ...
Lynx
> San Roque who have stolen the Gibraltar grant of arms and falsly
> claim to be the rightful owners of all Gibraltar should desist.
>
> I think you have been listening to that old fart in Germany with
> pretentions above his hyphen, overly much; Theres a guy
> down the chipshop swears he's Elvis ...
> --
> Jim Watt
You assume too much about what you read. The coat of arms appears to be
where in belongs, with the descendants of the "Old Gibraltarians", the ones
to whom it was granted. We, the "New Gibraltarians", should formalize proper
and open relations with the Old Gibraltarians. Otherwise we, New
Gibraltarians, will forever be bounced like a rubber ball, from pillar to
post, by both London and Madrid as the situation may suit them, whenever for
ever.
This enmity between the two sides of the divide seems senseless and
non-productive. Unless, of course, it assists the powers that be in
manipulating the vassals along with the wealth.
The "old fart in Germany", as you put it, must still be outpouring his
one-sided diatribe. Unlike you, I have long since blocked him out.
I hope this group will evolve and its number of participants with grow. Lets
put aside the "fortress mentality", shall we?
Cheers.
Mano
Jim Watt
from.home> wrote:
>> Wow you can read all that into the suggestion that the people in
>> San Roque who have stolen the Gibraltar grant of arms and falsly
>> claim to be the rightful owners of all Gibraltar should desist.
>>
>> I think you have been listening to that old fart in Germany with
>> pretentions above his hyphen, overly much; Theres a guy
>> down the chipshop swears he's Elvis ...
>> --
>> Jim Watt
>
>You assume too much about what you read. The coat of arms appears to be
>where in belongs, with the descendants of the "Old Gibraltarians", the ones
>to whom it was granted.
Nonsense it was granted to the City of Gibraltar which remains where
its always been, and thats where the item belongs.
It belongs to the territory, even more than the artifacts looted
by the British and others from foreign lands, because it was
given specifically to the place.
There are no 'old Gibraltarians' and 'new Gibraltarians' just
Gibraltarians and Spaniards who are all European.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> Nonsense it was granted to the City of Gibraltar which remains where
> its always been, and thats where the item belongs.
A City is made up of people, without its people, a City is nothing. So, it
must have been granted to the then people of Gibraltar.
> It belongs to the territory, even more than the artifacts looted
> by the British and others from foreign lands, because it was
> given specifically to the place.
Looting, now, you really shouldn't have mentioned the word. At any rate, the
current coat of arms, being used in Gibraltar, was granted to the city of
Gibraltar by a two bit military chap doing his time on the Rock.
> There are no 'old Gibraltarians' and 'new Gibraltarians' just
> Gibraltarians and Spaniards who are all European.
Of course there must be. So long as the descendants of old Gibraltar,
residing in San Roque, believe they are the true custodians of Gibraltar's
history prior to the "Austrian conquest", it stands to reason that such a
stance needs to be acknowledged and respected. That's not to say that we
would have to evacuate the place. Something which the UK almost succeeded in
doing during WWII.
You need to polish up your knowledge of Gib's history, old chap. Is the
Garrison Library available to the Citizens of Gibraltar? I wonder.
Mano
Jim Watt
from.home> wrote:
>Of course there must be. So long as the descendants of old Gibraltar,
>residing in San Roque, believe they are the true custodians of Gibraltar's
>history prior to the "Austrian conquest", it stands to reason that such a
>stance needs to be acknowledged and respected.
Nonsense.
The bottom line is that the grant of arms was to the City of Gibraltar
and its been stolen.
The people in San Roque are Spaniards, apart from the illegals
and the immigrants.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" wrote in message
> On Tue, 17 May 2005 18:45:45 GMT, "Lynx"
>
>>Of course there must be. So long as the descendants of old Gibraltar,
>>residing in San Roque, believe they are the true custodians of Gibraltar's
>>history prior to the "Austrian conquest", it stands to reason that such a
>>stance needs to be acknowledged and respected.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> The bottom line is that the grant of arms was to the City of Gibraltar
> and its been stolen.
>
> The people in San Roque are Spaniards, apart from the illegals
> and the immigrants.
> --
> Jim Watt
I wonder what it must be like being part of a captured audience. Being too
shit scared of going against the accepted and expected "norm".
To defend Gib, as we should and do, is one thing. To do a "Blair" on the
history of Gib, is something else altogether.
Mano
Jim Watt
If you are saying I'm 'shit scared' and "afraid of disagreeing with
things" then you don't know me. It is ignorant and insulting.
The facts of the matter are clear, something was given to the City
of Gibraltar and was removed. To call the people born in San Roque
today Gibraltarian is legally incorrect; they are no more that than I
am Irish because 800 years ago one of my precedents was born in
Ulster.
The history of Gibraltar is one of successive invasions, of which the
Spanish were just a part. The 'Gibraltarian identity' is a more
recent development and the flag and coat of arms forms a part of
that. On national day we dress up in red and white and gather
under the flag and have a good time. Thats one reason that the
symbol is important, and if it belongs in a museum its the Gibraltar
museum not a foreign one.
Feel free to offer a different opinion, but thats a fairly well
accepted one locally and its mine by choice.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>
> things" then you don't know me. It is ignorant and insulting.
>
> The facts of the matter are clear, something was given to the City
> of Gibraltar and was removed. To call the people born in San Roque
> today Gibraltarian is legally incorrect; they are no more that than I
> am Irish because 800 years ago one of my precedents was born in
> Ulster.
>
> The history of Gibraltar is one of successive invasions, of which the
> Spanish were just a part. The 'Gibraltarian identity' is a more
> recent development and the flag and coat of arms forms a part of
> that. On national day we dress up in red and white and gather
> under the flag and have a good time. Thats one reason that the
> symbol is important, and if it belongs in a museum its the Gibraltar
> museum not a foreign one.
>
> Feel free to offer a different opinion, but thats a fairly well
> accepted one locally and its mine by choice.
>
> --
> Jim Watt
Looks like we've reached an impasse. When it's all said and done, our flag,
Gib's flag, the flag everyone celebrates Gibraltar Day around, was created
and granted by Spain's monarchs in 1502. So in an insidious way, Gibraltar
as a whole, is acknowledging a historical fact.
Of course I ignore your character, I can only go by what I read in your
postings. As for insulting you, that was not my intention.
I enjoyed this exchange of ideas and perceptions. I'm hanging around, so
keep up the good work with the newsgroup.
Cheers, Mano.
jim.gm4dhj
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
news:_0Mie.7491$E7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
You tell him Mano......
Ken
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
Agreed. The people who lived in San Roque at the time in question (1704)
were Spaniards who lived in the town / city of Gibraltar. Their modern-day
equivalents and counterparts may be the Spaniards who today live in San
Roque and Algeciras. The then-inhabitants of Gib were exiled and set up camp
atop the hill and settled there in what was to become the town / city of San
Roque. The then-used term Gibraltarian referred to a Spaniard who lived in
Gib, just as then and now an Algecire~o refers to a Spaniard who lives in
Algeciras.
The term "Gibraltarian" today has a deeper meaning than it did in 1704/1713
and goes well beyond "one who lives in Gibraltar". For that meaning today we
use "resident in / of Gibraltar". The term "Gibraltarian" TODAY has meanings
of nationality and citizenhood, as the city and territory of Gibraltar
stands separate from Spain and everywhere else.
In todays sense, the antecedents of todays San Roque~os were residents of
Gibraltar, of Sp nationality. Todays Gibraltarians may be residents in
Gibraltar, or like Mano and I reside elsewhere but remain Gibraltarian. OTOH
not all those who reside in Gib are Gibraltarian. By contrast, an Algecire~o
or San Roque~o today ceases to be so the moment he moves house and lives in
Malaga or Manchester - but he is in all these places a Spaniard.
See the difference?
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
news:_0Mie.7491$E7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>
>> If you are saying I'm 'shit scared' and "afraid of disagreeing with
>> things" then you don't know me. It is ignorant and insulting.
>>
>> The facts of the matter are clear, something was given to the City
>> of Gibraltar and was removed. To call the people born in San Roque
>> today Gibraltarian is legally incorrect; they are no more that than I
>> am Irish because 800 years ago one of my precedents was born in
>> Ulster.
>>
>> The history of Gibraltar is one of successive invasions, of which the
>> Spanish were just a part. The 'Gibraltarian identity' is a more
>> recent development and the flag and coat of arms forms a part of
>> that. On national day we dress up in red and white and gather
>> under the flag and have a good time. Thats one reason that the
>> symbol is important, and if it belongs in a museum its the Gibraltar
>> museum not a foreign one.
>>
>> Feel free to offer a different opinion, but thats a fairly well
>> accepted one locally and its mine by choice.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Watt
>
> Looks like we've reached an impasse. When it's all said and done, our
> flag, Gib's flag, the flag everyone celebrates Gibraltar Day around, was
> created and granted by Spain's monarchs in 1502. So in an insidious way,
> Gibraltar as a whole, is acknowledging a historical fact.
History cannot be denied. I for one do not feel in the slightest bit
uncomfortable with Gib's Sp history not Gib's Arab history. They are all
part of what we are today, and to deny any part of this, to pretend it did
not happen would mean we were not who and what we are, and we would be the
poorer for it. That OTOH does not mean we should roll on our backs and
expose our underbelly and let in an unwelcome take-over today.
K
DCC
Nationality or Citizenship. That some may wish that, perhaps! But the
reality is that there is no Nation called Gibraltar and from that it
logically flows that there are no Gibraltar Citizenship. The nearest one
gets is being a registered 'Gibraltarian' under the Gibraltarian Status
Ordinance (1962). I guess that has no international status.
That does not, in my view, impede or dilute the aspirations of the 'People
of Gibraltar'. And certainly developments since the end of WWII have come a
very long way towards 'Peoplehood'. No doubt the 2002 referendum being one
of the highest points in the building of our 'peoplehood'. When the colonial
master was (forever) stripped of the power to decide our future. The moral
status that referendum had totally eclipsed it none 'legal' nature and I'd
add that it was de facto more important and powerful than the 1969
referendum.
If the weather was more pleasant and predictable in November, I'd propose
they move National day!
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d6g7g0$9ot$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Lynx
unite and make one, what we know today as Spain. Gibraltar formed a crucial
part of that Spain at the time. Gib at the time was a powerhouse, governing
extensive lands and seaports. A real money spinner. The House of Medina
Sidonia, a prominent member of the realm, warring with its own king, and
succeeding in the capture and control Gibraltar.
Knowledge or our existence in the greater Commonwealth is practically zero,
few people know who, what or where we are. The Brits have done nothing to
expound our identity. So be it. It is up to us.
In this discussion, or tertulia in the language of old, we have covered
several topics. History, colonial status, the birth of a people,
citizenship, etc. We all feel Gibraltarian. Evidently the Gibraltarian is
not a figment of imagination.
The status of our flag, our symbol, is a crucial one, which needs to be
resolved. Two entities cannot bear the same flag. There is historical
relevance to San Roque's claim, as indeed there is to Gibraltar's claims. An
understanding needs to be reached, less we twirl around the globe with an
unrecognized symbol, as was the case at Rota. We are not pirates. The
hospitable and friendly nature of the Gibraltarians, in essence a
Mediterranean cultured people, is a hallmark of our identity. We need to
work from the inside out if ever our hallmark is to be stamped in the minds
of other entities.
"DCC" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
>I have my doubts that the term 'Gibraltarian' today has meanings of
>Nationality or Citizenship. That some may wish that, perhaps! But the
>reality is that there is no Nation called Gibraltar and from that it
>logically flows that there are no Gibraltar Citizenship. The nearest one
>gets is being a registered 'Gibraltarian' under the Gibraltarian Status
>Ordinance (1962). I guess that has no international status.
>
> That does not, in my view, impede or dilute the aspirations of the 'People
> of Gibraltar'..........
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>> The bottom line is that the grant of arms was to the City of Gibraltar
>>> and its been stolen.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. The people who lived in San Roque at the time in question (1704)
>> were Spaniards who lived in the town / city of Gibraltar. Their
>> modern-day equivalents and counterparts may be the Spaniards who today
>> live in San Roque and Algeciras. >>
>> Ken
>>
>
>
Lynx
"jim.gm4dhj" <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:JQMie.8264$X86...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
Someone's got to.......
Cheers.
Jim Watt
from.home> wrote:
>The status of our flag, our symbol, is a crucial one, which needs to be
>resolved. Two entities cannot bear the same flag. There is historical
>relevance to San Roque's claim, as indeed there is to Gibraltar's claims. An
>understanding needs to be reached
1. Gibraltar alive and well.
2. Spaniards who left Gibraltar 300 years ago are dead.
Spot the difference.
That 'old' Gibraltar has gone, most of its infrastructure destroyed in
the seiges; the new one, the schools, hospitals, roads, digital
communcations water, electricity, and homes has been paid for by the
people living here today.
The legacy of Caruana will be the Piazza, Main Street, and casemates
which will survive him. The Spanish state will be remembered for
petty harassment, ranging from sport, the telephones and the closure
and queues at the frontier - issues all of which are ongoing.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 04:35:18 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
> from.home> wrote:
>
>>The status of our flag, our symbol, is a crucial one, which needs to be
>>resolved. Two entities cannot bear the same flag. There is historical
>>relevance to San Roque's claim, as indeed there is to Gibraltar's claims.
>>An
>>understanding needs to be reached
>
> 1. Gibraltar alive and well.
>
> 2. Spaniards who left Gibraltar 300 years ago are dead.
>
> Spot the difference.
You contradict yourself. Gibraltar alive and well, yes, but only because of
our forefathers who settled there some 300 years ago. And you know what? All
of our forefathers are dead too. May they R.I.P. We honour and recall our
forefathers, mostly by word of mouth and a handful of books. Given that
there has been so little, if anything, written on the life and times and
traditions of Gibraltarians. Even our dialect is a thing of the past.
Tell me, does every, silent, Gibraltarian wish as problematic and UK
dependant existence for their future generations as you seem to promote?
> That 'old' Gibraltar has gone, most of its infrastructure destroyed in
> the seiges; the new one, the schools, hospitals, roads, digital
> communcations water, electricity, and homes has been paid for by the
> people living here today.
No one disputes the development of Gibraltar being realised by the combined
efforts of the UK and local powerful business influences. We all know,
respect and acknowledge this fact. You keep bringing up topics about which
there is no argument.
> The legacy of Caruana will be the Piazza, Main Street, and casemates
> which will survive him. The Spanish state will be remembered for
> petty harassment, ranging from sport, the telephones and the closure
> and queues at the frontier - issues all of which are ongoing.
True, true, true. Again, there's no argument. I lived in Gibraltar when the
frontier was closed, I'm not too sure where you might have been at the time.
Later I visited Gibraltar when the frontier was closed. I know only too
well, how Gibraltar has been long held between a Rock and a hard place. In
more recent times I have even come to know how some ill-conceived
politicians' have tried to place the Gibraltarians between the Spanish and
the "thin red line". Lest we forget who our friends are.
Don't try to tell me about Gibraltar, about the man and woman in the street,
about my folks back home.
The point in question is the FLAG. Gibraltar's symbol, a symbol which I for
one defend and wish to keep. The arms as we know it today, Castle and Key,
are a "copy of the original". This "copy of the original" being officially
recognised in 1930 by the Garter King of Arms. We haven't had an official
CoA that long, it would seem.
That Gibraltar and the cities and towns, namely San Roque, in the
territories bearing Gibraltar's name, Campo de Gibraltar, should be at odds
with Gib over their/our flag, though serious, is almost childish. We need to
steer tactfully, finding a way, a resolution. Bringing about a productive
outcome benefiting all parties and future generations.
Mano
Ken
>I have my doubts that the term 'Gibraltarian' today has meanings of
>Nationality or Citizenship. That some may wish that, perhaps! But the
>reality is that there is no Nation called Gibraltar and from that it
>logically flows that there are no Gibraltar Citizenship. The nearest one
>gets is being a registered 'Gibraltarian' under the Gibraltarian Status
>Ordinance (1962). I guess that has no international status.
While in offical use you are correct, it is also the case that, as I said,
the term Gibraltarian means rather more than a resident of Gibraltar. You
and I are both Gibraltarians though neither of us reside there, and many who
do reside there are NOT Gibraltarians. The closest parallel to that
situation applied for example to German or Belgian or Zimbabwean is the
concept of the descriptive term being used to denote nationality.
That YOU may or may not not feel yourself to be a Gib national is one thing,
that I do is another.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
> Spain or Hispania, was a Roman invention. The Catholic monarchs did much
> to unite and make one, what we know today as Spain. Gibraltar formed a
> crucial part of that Spain at the time. Gib at the time was a powerhouse,
> governing extensive lands and seaports. A real money spinner. The House of
> Medina Sidonia, a prominent member of the realm, warring with its own
> king, and succeeding in the capture and control Gibraltar.
>
> Knowledge or our existence in the greater Commonwealth is practically
> zero, few people know who, what or where we are. The Brits have done
> nothing to expound our identity. So be it. It is up to us.
Of course it's up to us - it's OUR identity, who else would it be up to?
Heck if we are not to decide on matters on our own identity we cannot decide
on very much at all!
>
> In this discussion, or tertulia in the language of old, we have covered
> several topics. History, colonial status, the birth of a people,
> citizenship, etc. We all feel Gibraltarian. Evidently the Gibraltarian is
> not a figment of imagination.
>
> The status of our flag, our symbol, is a crucial one, which needs to be
> resolved. Two entities cannot bear the same flag. There is historical
> relevance to San Roque's claim, as indeed there is to Gibraltar's claims.
> An understanding needs to be reached, less we twirl around the globe with
> an unrecognized symbol, as was the case at Rota.
The SP authorities DID recognise the symbol - that's the whole point. They
recognised it as being the symbol of Gibraltar which is why PRECISELY they
refused entry to the ship - which is de facto recognition of Gibraltar as a
separate entity! That they dishonour their Queen Isabella by turing their
backs on that which she bestowed is a different matter altogether and is an
internal one for them.
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>
> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> news:kqeo81pkmo2461qit...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 May 2005 04:35:18 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
>> from.home> wrote:
>>
>>>The status of our flag, our symbol, is a crucial one, which needs to be
>>>resolved. Two entities cannot bear the same flag. There is historical
>>>relevance to San Roque's claim, as indeed there is to Gibraltar's claims.
>>>An
>>>understanding needs to be reached
>>
>> 1. Gibraltar alive and well.
>>
>> 2. Spaniards who left Gibraltar 300 years ago are dead.
>>
>> Spot the difference.
>
> You contradict yourself. Gibraltar alive and well, yes, but only because
> of our forefathers who settled there some 300 years ago. And you know
> what? All of our forefathers are dead too. May they R.I.P. We honour and
> recall our forefathers, mostly by word of mouth and a handful of books.
> Given that there has been so little, if anything, written on the life and
> times and traditions of Gibraltarians. Even our dialect is a thing of the
> past.
>
> Tell me, does every, silent, Gibraltarian wish as problematic and UK
> dependant existence for their future generations as you seem to promote?
By definition, the silent ones do not speak. Anyone who refuses to express
themselves is not consulted and does not his or her views taken into
account - this is what happens at elections in which one does not vote. The
silent ones are not in a position to complain that theor views were not
taken into consideration as they refuse to partake of debate.
As far as this vociferous one is concerned, I do not wish for a problematic
existance for Gib nor do I wish for a UK-dependant economy or frankly
dependant on anyone else for that matter. Gib has shown itself to be capable
of looking after itself financially and in all other spheres too. All
nations survive by the good grace of other nations that do not invade thier
shores. All I am asking for Gib is that she be permitted to exist and
prosper in the same way that other nations are so permitted. That we are
harassed and passed from pillar to post by London often bending to Madrid's
will and insistance is not a reflection on Gib, but a sad indictment of
bully boys playing rough with someone smaller and weaker than themselves.
If London and Madrid both forgot we existed life in Gib would be ever
sweeter. Have you not noticed how over the years, regardless of the party in
power, the best times in Gib occur when the respective govts in UK and Sp
are having internal turmoils and leadership problems? One reason why I think
it's great that the Lab party in the UK is having difficulties just now and
coping with a far reduced majority.
Ken
Jim Watt
from.home> wrote:
>Tell me, does every, silent, Gibraltarian wish as problematic and UK
>dependant existence for their future generations as you seem to promote?
If they are silent you will not get an answer, and I speak for myself.
I have no idea where you get the idea I am promoting a 'UK
dependant existance' thats is total nonsense.
>No one disputes the development of Gibraltar being realised by the combined
>efforts of the UK and local powerful business influences.
I dispute it.
>We all know, respect and acknowledge this fact.
You seem to be rather out of touch with reality.
> I lived in Gibraltar when the frontier was closed
So did I and I preferred it then.
>Don't try to tell me about Gibraltar, about the man and woman in the street,
>about my folks back home.
I'm in the street every day. If you want to bury your head in the
sand become an ostrich.
>That Gibraltar and the cities and towns, namely San Roque, in the
>territories bearing Gibraltar's name, Campo de Gibraltar, should be at odds
>with Gib over their/our flag, though serious, is almost childish. We need to
>steer tactfully, finding a way, a resolution. Bringing about a productive
>outcome benefiting all parties and future generations.
Yeah and as a starter they could return that which is stolen of
Gibraltar and do what the thread title suggests regading winging
about what happened 300 years ago.
marika
Ken wrote:
>
> By definition, the silent ones do not speak.
that's because they didn't call into the private party hee hee.
We will have to reschedule
mk5000
"get em"--jet li
Lynx
>> dependant existence for their future generations as you seem to promote?
>
> By definition, the silent ones do not speak. Anyone who refuses to express
> themselves is not consulted and does not his or her views taken into
> account - this is what happens at elections in which one does not vote.
> The silent ones are not in a position to complain that theor views were
> not taken into consideration as they refuse to partake of debate.
I suggest the silent ones are so, because they clearly see the farcical
situation they are continuously placed in by London and Madrid, amongst
others. Referendums are conducted like polls, where the manner in which the
questions/choices are structured will determine the outcome. In the first
referendum the Gibraltarians were given two choices, join a dictatorship or
stay as you are, colonials. Well! the outcome could have been guessed by
anyone. Oh, and if anyone's not happy with the status quo, "the frontier is
open, we have not closed it". The words of a prominent UK parliamentarian at
the time visiting Gib.
The second referendum, an exercise to fill the coffers of flag importers,
and little else.
> ......harassed and passed from pillar to post by London often bending to
> Madrid's will and insistance is not a reflection on Gib, but a sad
> indictment of bully boys playing rough with someone smaller and weaker
> than themselves.
Bingo!
> .....the best times in Gib occur when the respective govts in UK and Sp
> are having internal turmoils and leadership problems? One reason why I
> think it's great that the Lab party in the UK is having difficulties just
> now and coping with a far reduced majority.
If a colony needs a lame colonial master to prosper, then it is clear where
that colonial master as such should go.
The UK elections are reminiscent of Gib's referendums. In that the UK's
electorate had a choice between the incumbent and a dud would be PM.
Mano
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>
>
>>combined
>>efforts of the UK and local powerful business influences.
>
> I dispute it.
I want some of that stuff you're on.
>>We all know, respect and acknowledge this fact.
>
> You seem to be rather out of touch with reality.
Gib owed it's existance to the then HMS Dockyard.
>> I lived in Gibraltar when the frontier was closed
>
> So did I and I preferred it then.
You must have been in the groceries and perishables importing business. Just
like the good old days, straight after 1704, when the "middlemen" milked the
UK government for supplies to the garrison.
> Yeah and as a starter they could return that which is stolen of
> Gibraltar and do what the thread title suggests regading winging
> about what happened 300 years ago.
You give a whole new meaning to the word stolen.
Mano
Lynx
> news:aIUie.7764$E7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> nothing to expound our identity. So be it. It is up to us.
>
> Of course it's up to us - it's OUR identity, who else would it be up to?
> Heck if we are not to decide on matters on our own identity we cannot
> decide on very much at all!
Yes, but that's just the point. GBC, I don't know of any other organisation
which could make a frequent and loud enough noise, has trouble conveying the
news to the local population. What chance is there for Gib's existence to be
conveyed to the world at large? Gib should take a page out of Singapore's
tactics, at the UN and other fields, where even making a noise lets others
know where you are. But I really shouldn't be making such a comparison,
Singaporeans, understandably, are bound to take offence.
> The SP authorities DID recognise the symbol - that's the whole point. They
> recognised it as being the symbol of Gibraltar which is why PRECISELY they
> refused entry to the ship - which is de facto recognition of Gibraltar as
> a separate entity! That they dishonour their Queen Isabella by turing
> their backs on that which she bestowed is a different matter altogether
> and is an internal one for them.
You are confusing the issue. They did not recognise our flag, because the
only such flag they will recognise is that which represents San Roque.
Mano
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>
> The second referendum, an exercise to fill the coffers of flag importers,
> and little else.
Oh and you forgot to mention - it stopped dead in its tracks the plans that
Blair had to sell out Gib for the sake of Sp support in the EU so that Tony
might get to be EU president.
>
>> ......harassed and passed from pillar to post by London often bending to
>> Madrid's will and insistance is not a reflection on Gib, but a sad
>> indictment of bully boys playing rough with someone smaller and weaker
>> than themselves.
>
> Bingo!
>
>> .....the best times in Gib occur when the respective govts in UK and Sp
>> are having internal turmoils and leadership problems? One reason why I
>> think it's great that the Lab party in the UK is having difficulties just
>> now and coping with a far reduced majority.
>
> If a colony needs a lame colonial master to prosper, then it is clear
> where that colonial master as such should go.
I agree that the days when colonialism was welcome are over. That is not to
say that all ties with the UK should be broken. THAT OTOH has little to do
with the fact that when London and Madrid are distracted by other issues
that concern them, matters pertaining to Gib are placed on the back burner
and we all live a more peaceful life.
You, it seems are impossible to please. When things are quiet you seem to
want to make a noise, so uncomfortable is the colonilaost status quo. OTOH
when it's noisy you wish for some sort of agreements and reconicliation so
that things should be quiet agin!
>
> The UK elections are reminiscent of Gib's referendums. In that the UK's
> electorate had a choice between the incumbent and a dud would be PM.
For the elections 1979 and on in the UK which returned a COnservative Govt
it was not so because the Conservatives were particularly attractive, but
because the Labour party was unelectable. The Tories are still reeling from
the demise of the Thatcheriteyears and the Labour govt has been returned
simply because there was no-one else electable. OTOH the UK voting system -
the first past the post - was perfectly adequate as long as there were only
2 parties in the running. Now there are three general-interest parties with
credible levels of support across the nation for each, it becomes farcical.
The latest Lab majority of 67 seats was delivered with 37% of the vote on
such a poor turnout that the Lab party has an absolute majority having
received votes from just 20% of the eligible electorate. Perhaps the best
thing that could happen to the UK is to have a hung parliament so as to deny
any one party the right to dictate until the date of the next general
election. THEN the politicos might see fit to introduce a system of
proportional representation. Until a hung parliament occurs I doubt ANY govt
of ANY persuasion will choose to abolish an unfair system for election,
simplybecause without it they themselves would not have made it to power!
As regards Gib, I would prefer we should stand alone free from harrassment
from any quarter. If however that much is not forthcoming, I would rather be
subject to a Pax Britannica with all its shortcomings than any form of Pax
Hispaniola, whatevr the paper benefits might be. Yes, the lesser of two
evils as you might say - but better than the worse of the evils, don't you
agree?
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>> news:aIUie.7764$E7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
> only such flag they will recognise is that which represents San Roque.
The confusion arises in the useage of the word "recognise". Of course they
recognised it in as much as they knew what they were looking at, but they
did not recognise it - they did not give credence to - the authority that
that particualrly symbol represented. Even if that symbol was initially
issued by one of their own. THAT flag does NOT represent San Roque. That
flag is the banner made with the arms given to the City of Gibraltar. That
the inhabitants of that city fled in 1704 and took the original illustration
of that symbol with them does not make it any less the symbol of the place
they left (and from which they took it as a souvenir) nor does it make it
any more a symbol of the place they came to rest in.
No more than when a visitor takes a model of the Eiffel Tower home to
Singapore does the Eiffel Tower become a symbol of Singapore. Even if he
took the original Eiffel Tower with him.
K
DCC
But who cares. You win!
Have fun on the Rock.
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d6ii75$ddb$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Lynx
>> and little else.
>
> Oh and you forgot to mention - it stopped dead in its tracks the plans
> that Blair had to sell out Gib for the sake of Sp support in the EU so
> that Tony might get to be EU president.
So, Gib's still the carrot, the golden fleece. Dangle the carrot long enough
and it will either wilt or fall prey to its pursuer.
Britain's direct rule over Gib is comparable to Damocles' sword dangling
over our heads. This is not a case of being anti-British, rather an argument
for truer democracy, where an alien electorate has no direct rule over the
"local electorate". At the same time there's need to ensure Gibraltarians
cease to be vassals of "los hijos de papi".............
>> If a colony needs a lame colonial master to prosper, then it is clear
>> where that colonial master as such should go.
>
> I agree that the days when colonialism was welcome are over.
The British Empire's saving grace was the birth of telecommunication,
without which it would have crumbled long before it did. That a good part of
the world can communicate via English is an undeniable achievement. It
should be observed, that Mandarin, or rather it's multiple dialects aside,
Spanish ranks third as the most spoken language in the world. So we Gibbos
have no excuse for not hammering out a congenial future by way of dialogue.
> You, it seems are impossible to please. When things are quiet you seem to
> want to make a noise, so uncomfortable is the colonilaost status quo. OTOH
> when it's noisy you wish for some sort of agreements and reconicliation so
> that things should be quiet agin!
Er, well, hmm, yes, I am hard to please really. I'm hard to please because
two cities that shared a momentous part in European history, the
reverberations of which are felt today. Two cities that share the same flag,
can't be brought to the table to sort out their differences, shake hands on
it, and start making of the Campo de Gibraltar and Gibraltar what it should
be. A magnet for tourism, industry, imports and exports. A region at
cross-roads between two continents and two seas, surely, the chance for
exploiting endless opportunities are there for anyone to see.
>..............................the Lab party has an absolute majority having
>received votes from just 20% of the eligible electorate. Perhaps the best
>thing that could happen to the UK is to have a hung parliament so as to
>deny any one party the right to dictate until the date of the next general
>election. THEN the politicos might see fit to introduce a system of
>proportional representation. Until a hung parliament occurs I doubt ANY
>govt of ANY persuasion will choose to abolish an unfair system for
>election, simplybecause without it they themselves would not have made it
>to power!
That's democracy for you. Little wonder some entities are suspicious of the
values of such a system.
So the UK electorate must be as disillusioned with the system as the "silent
Gibraltarians" are with "el jugueteo".
Politics has always been the domain of the wealthy and influential stock of
society. The gerrymander being a most decisive invention which prevents just
what you are hoping for.
> As regards Gib, I would prefer we should stand alone free from harrassment
> from any quarter. If however that much is not forthcoming, I would rather
> be subject to a Pax Britannica with all its shortcomings than any form of
> Pax Hispaniola, whatevr the paper benefits might be. Yes, the lesser of
> two evils as you might say - but better than the worse of the evils, don't
> you agree?
I agree in part, I have to say. When the lesser of two evils gives you the
option of standing between an assumed foe (Spain) and the "thin red line", I
fail to see what, if anything, makes the lesser of two evils any lesser of
an evil. The fact is that Gib's the only toe-hold the UK has in mainland
Europe. Gib's constitution, elections, negotiations, it's all cheap talk.
The base, it would seem, is there to stay. Where would all those nuke-subs
go to? Where would the toffee boys be posted? What would become of the
realm? And of course, so long as enough workers are made dependant on the
MOD.......nudge nudge, say no more.
Mano
Lynx
I hear what you say, but I cannot agree with you. I see it differently. Lets
assume we are on a battle field, we have our standard with us as we do
battle. We capitulate in a pre-arranged, supposedly honourable, manner. Only
to find once the handover has been drafted and executed, that we are told to
leave with what little we have on our backs. Of course, we'd take what we
can, because where we're going there's nothing, no shelter, no roofs,
nothing. Our standard, our CoA, does not cease to be such. Why? Because it
was granted to us by our crown. For what reason? As an acknowledgement and
reward to our loyalty and sense of nobleness. That CoA and what it stands
for, cannot be taken by force, it cannot be assumed by any other than the
citizens to whom it was granted.
Thieving a medal from an Olympian doesn't make one an athlete.
It almost pains me to say this, but that's how it was, and that's how it is.
That the descendants, some at least, of the old Gibraltarians had the
tenacity to settle new grounds and jealously guard their standard,
historical documents, title deeds, etc.etc. to this day, is nothing short of
amazing. These people were ousted by a massive force from a country which
never declared war on them. Un atraco. Spain was at war with itself, the
Hapsburg against the Bourbons within Spain. The powers that be, in Gib and
the Campo, if not beyond, should get their heads together and hammer out an
understanding. That's how I see things through this looking glass.
Mano
Jim Watt
from.home> wrote:
>I want some of that stuff you're on.
Clearly you do, its called 'reality' get some.
>Gib owed it's existance to the then HMS Dockyard.
What Gibraltar has is a strategic position at the entrance of
the mediterranean.
>> Yeah and as a starter they could return that which is stolen of
>> Gibraltar and do what the thread title suggests regading wingeing
>> about what happened 300 years ago.
>
>You give a whole new meaning to the word stolen.
I understand theft to be taking someone else's property with the
intention of permanently depriving them of it.
Jim Watt
from.home> wrote:
>It almost pains me to say this, but that's how it was, and that's how it is.
>That the descendants, some at least, of the old Gibraltarians had the
>tenacity to settle new grounds and jealously guard their standard,
>historical documents, title deeds, etc.etc. to this day, is nothing short of
>amazing. These people were ousted by a massive force from a country which
>never declared war on them. Un atraco. Spain was at war with itself, the
>Hapsburg against the Bourbons within Spain. The powers that be, in Gib and
>the Campo, if not beyond, should get their heads together and hammer out an
>understanding. That's how I see things through this looking glass.
Your 'old gibraltarians' were Spaniards. many of which did not want
to be in Gibraltar, which at the time was a very unhealthy place with
a bad water supply. They took the opportunity to move to a better
area.
You also ignore the reason why the British were involved in the war
of succession, which was to prevent Spain being controlled by
France, the enemy of Britain. If they had failed, and Nelson had
not transhed their navy. then the Spanish and probably British would
all be speaking a common language now.
However, looking at things today, what Gibraltar is and what its
infrastructure is results from the efforts of the Gibraltarians in
post war years, and in particular the changes brought in by
Joe Bossano, the reclamation, home ownership, digital
telecoms, a reliable water supply, etc. These have been
built on by the current administratrion delivering a face lift
to Main Street, casemates, the Piazza and the new Hospital
All of this has been done against a background of oppression
and non-cooperation from Spain and with very little assistance
morally and none financially from the UK who's sole concern
is their Naval base and other military operations from the rock.
What the referendum demonstated was that the grass roots
feeling of the people was that they want to continue in the
direction we are going, and not become part of Spain.
There was nobody official telling them to vote NO, apart from
one leaflet and a page in the Chronicle from the GSD rather
than the Government.
However, on the day your 'silent majority' put their mark on
the paper. Jack Straw grudgingly respects that, and so
must you.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 20:35:22 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
> from.home> wrote:
>
>>I want some of that stuff you're on.
>
> Clearly you do, its called 'reality' get some.
Cynicism becomes you...........
>>Gib owed it's existance to the then HMS Dockyard.
>
> What Gibraltar has is a strategic position at the entrance of
> the mediterranean.
Yep, even The Law Protector, Cromwell, had his eyes on the Rock.
>>> Yeah and as a starter they could return that which is stolen of
>>> Gibraltar and do what the thread title suggests regading wingeing
>>> about what happened 300 years ago.
>>
>>You give a whole new meaning to the word stolen.
>
> I understand theft to be taking someone else's property with the
> intention of permanently depriving them of it.
It's amazing how perspective can be change, depending on where,
geographically, one is. At the end of the day, it's up to the Gibraltarians
and residents in Gib who'll have to decide how they want to spend the next
300 yrs.
Mano
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Fri, 20 May 2005 03:07:58 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
> from.home> wrote:
>
>>It almost pains me to say this, but that's how it was, and that's how it
>>is.
>>That the descendants, some at least, of the old Gibraltarians had the
>>tenacity to settle new grounds and jealously guard their standard,
>>historical documents, title deeds, etc.etc. to this day, is nothing short
>>of
>>amazing. These people were ousted by a massive force from a country which
>>never declared war on them. Un atraco. Spain was at war with itself, the
>>Hapsburg against the Bourbons within Spain. The powers that be, in Gib and
>>the Campo, if not beyond, should get their heads together and hammer out
>>an
>>understanding. That's how I see things through this looking glass.
>
> Your 'old gibraltarians' were Spaniards. many of which did not want
> to be in Gibraltar, which at the time was a very unhealthy place with
> a bad water supply. They took the opportunity to move to a better
> area.
That's news to me. In fact, I wouldn't mind it at all if you send me a list
on recent books on Gibraltar's history.
> You also ignore the reason why the British were involved in the war
> of succession, which was to prevent Spain being controlled by
> France, the enemy of Britain. If they had failed, and Nelson had
> not transhed their navy. then the Spanish and probably British would
> all be speaking a common language now.
Qui Monsieur. Que? Jokes aside, Britain backed the Habsburg for no other
reason than to prevent France becoming a super-power. You're right, we'd all
be speaking Fronch.
> However, looking at things today, what Gibraltar is and what its
> infrastructure is results from the efforts of the Gibraltarians in
> post war years, and in particular the changes brought in by
> Joe Bossano, the reclamation, home ownership, digital
> telecoms, a reliable water supply, etc. These have been
> built on by the current administratrion delivering a face lift
> to Main Street, casemates, the Piazza and the new Hospital
Yes, and I applaud the efforts and achievements. The Gibraltarians are a
sturdy lot, and deserve far more recognition than has so far been the case.
> All of this has been done against a background of oppression
> and non-cooperation from Spain and with very little assistance
> morally and none financially from the UK who's sole concern
> is their Naval base and other military operations from the rock.
Britain, and we're all British let us not forget, has always dealt two pack
of cards when playing the Rock game. It's always been difficult to know
exactly what the UK government's been up to at any given time with regards
to Gib. One thing I'll say for the Blair gov. is that at least, bitter as it
was, he had the gumption to state his intentions. Or at least what his,
purported, intentions were.
> What the referendum demonstated was that the grass roots
> feeling of the people was that they want to continue in the
> direction we are going, and not become part of Spain.
Amen.
> There was nobody official telling them to vote NO, apart from
> one leaflet and a page in the Chronicle from the GSD rather
> than the Government.
>
> However, on the day your 'silent majority' put their mark on
> the paper. Jack Straw grudgingly respects that, and so
> must you.
I do, and I maintain that Gib's future is for the Gibraltarians to decide.
So long as they have a good helmsman. Preferably one who resides in Gib.
Mano
Jim Watt
from.home> wrote:
>It's amazing how perspective can be change, depending on where,
>geographically, one is. At the end of the day, it's up to the Gibraltarians
>and residents in Gib who'll have to decide how they want to spend the next
>300 yrs.
Indeed on that we can agree 100%, however the 'stolen property' I
am referring to is the emblem granted to the city of Gibraltar which
needs to be returned.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
I understood you first time. The CoA, the two cities, it's the epitome of a
dichotomy, if ever there was one. The whole situation doesn't sit well with
me. While I do defend the CoA, I cannot turn a blind eye to San R. At any
rate, I'm sure we can agree to disagree on this one.
The last book I bought on Gib was a rather large book, full of photographs
and little else. Can't remember the name now. Also there's a book called the
Streets of Gibraltar. If you should come across any relatively new bookon
Gib, dealing with the history of the towns folk, I've got a trunk full of
military related books on Gib, I'd appreciate you pass the names onto me.
Lester Mosley
marika wrote:
> Ken wrote:
>
> >
> > By definition, the silent ones do not speak.
>
>
> that's because they didn't call into the private party hee hee.
> We will have to reschedule
The Score was 22-8
Jim Watt
from.home> wrote:
>
>"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>news:q76r81t8knsqdu5gc...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 20 May 2005 07:41:19 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
>> from.home> wrote:
>>
>>>It's amazing how perspective can be change, depending on where,
>>>geographically, one is. At the end of the day, it's up to the
>>>Gibraltarians
>>>and residents in Gib who'll have to decide how they want to spend the next
>>>300 yrs.
>>
>> Indeed on that we can agree 100%, however the 'stolen property' I
>> am referring to is the emblem granted to the city of Gibraltar which
>> needs to be returned.
>
>I understood you first time. The CoA, the two cities, it's the epitome of a
>dichotomy, if ever there was one. The whole situation doesn't sit well with
>me. While I do defend the CoA, I cannot turn a blind eye to San R. At any
>rate, I'm sure we can agree to disagree on this one.
I can't ignore theft either.
>The last book I bought on Gib was a rather large book, full of photographs
>and little else. Can't remember the name now. Also there's a book called the
>Streets of Gibraltar. If you should come across any relatively new bookon
>Gib, dealing with the history of the towns folk, I've got a trunk full of
>military related books on Gib, I'd appreciate you pass the names onto me.
the other day I spent 20 minutes at the Museum waiting for someone
to formally accept a donations, they seem to have the best range of
books about Gibraltar I have seen, including some that are not
available in the shops.
Jim Watt
from.home> wrote:
<big snip>
>I do, and I maintain that Gib's future is for the Gibraltarians to decide.
>So long as they have a good helmsman. Preferably one who resides in Gib.
Please do not be deceived into believeing the lies of HC that Peter
lives in Spain and spends all his time on the gold course, its total
imagination based on the fact that he once listed golf as a
hobby.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in
>
It stands to reason
>>The last book I bought on Gib was a rather large book, full of photographs
>>and little else. Can't remember the name now. Also there's a book called
>>the
>>Streets of Gibraltar. If you should come across any relatively new bookon
>>Gib, dealing with the history of the towns folk, I've got a trunk full of
>>military related books on Gib, I'd appreciate you pass the names onto me.
>
> the other day I spent 20 minutes at the Museum waiting for someone
> to formally accept a donations, they seem to have the best range of
> books about Gibraltar I have seen, including some that are not
> available in the shops.
What's the Gib Museum's email? Is Dorothy Ellicott still around?
Cheers,
Mano
Lynx
>>So long as they have a good helmsman. Preferably one who resides in Gib.
>
> Please do not be deceived into believeing the lies of HC that Peter
> lives in Spain and spends all his time on the gold course, its total
> imagination based on the fact that he once listed golf as a
> hobby.
I'm not up to date with what the opposition may have on offer, if anything,
but from what I've seen, Peter would have to be the best leader available,
and a ruddy good job he's done too. Gib deserves loads more in the sense of
recognition, acceptance and nil harassment.
Mano
Jim Watt
from.home> wrote:
>I'm not up to date with what the opposition may have on offer, if anything,
>but from what I've seen, Peter would have to be the best leader available,
>and a ruddy good job he's done too. Gib deserves loads more in the sense of
>recognition, acceptance and nil harassment.
Government has a credibility gap at present as they have not
delivered on housing, and have increased the cost of a number
of things recently.
Overall I'm happy with them, however must say we made more
money with Bossano in Government.
Jim Watt
from.home> wrote:
>What's the Gib Museum's email? Is Dorothy Ellicott still around?
the web site
sadly not
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:e7pt81db3dub5nk79...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 00:22:26 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
> from.home> wrote:
>
>>What's the Gib Museum's email? Is Dorothy Ellicott still around?
>
> the web site
>
> www.gib.gi/museum
Thanks
> sadly not
Sorry to hear that. Every bit a Lady. A great loss.
Mano
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote
>
> Government has a credibility gap at present as they have not
> delivered on housing, and have increased the cost of a number
> of things recently.
Housing in Gib's always been a problem, and despite what you may think, it
has cost locals dearly in weekly rent. At the end of the day, a tenant has
nothing to show, propertywise. The number of Gibraltarians abroad would have
to outnumber those living at home. Even worse, if we count the offsprings
born overseas. This is one topic which at times makes me see red. But then,
we're not alone. Here, one may interact with as many as six different
ethnicities during the course of a day. Migration could be seen as a
20th-21st century major disease. The latest we're getting are suddanese.
> Overall I'm happy with them, however must say we made more
> money with Bossano in Government.
I undersatnd Bossano's an economist.
Jim Watt
from.home> wrote:
>Housing in Gib's always been a problem, and despite what you may think, it
>has cost locals dearly in weekly rent.
You have missed out on the ethos of home ownership, which started
with the reclamation and other developments. A lot of people have
also bought a first or second home in Spain.
Although the current Government have not built anything, they have
taken over a lot of MoD property, and the estate adjacent to Rooke
which is quite large.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 08:41:27 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
> from.home> wrote:
>
>>Housing in Gib's always been a problem, and despite what you may think, it
>>has cost locals dearly in weekly rent.
>
> You have missed out on the ethos of home ownership, which started
> with the reclamation and other developments. A lot of people have
> also bought a first or second home in Spain.
Yes and no. On a visit back home, I explored the possibilities of buying a
flat at Gib 5, off the plan, as an investment. But "buying a lease" didn't
grabbed me so much. Here one owns the land and the building. Likewise in UK
and Spain.
I never figured out how property ownership, is trully governed in Gib. The
old quarters, Main St., Irish Town, Engineers' Lane, Library Steps, Scudd
Hill, etc.etc. Dwellings in these parts of Gib seem to be handed over from
father to son. The same family name may persist for generations. Are some
quaretrs not based on a lease? I wonder. And if they are, how are leases
renewed (?). It's all a bit of a mystery to me, I'm afraid.
> Although the current Government have not built anything, they have
> taken over a lot of MoD property, and the estate adjacent to Rooke
> which is quite large.
Yes. BTW, how did those super expensive dwellings up at the Rock, roughly
above Queens Cinema, come about? Where they privately built on crown land,
or did the gov have a hand in them?
Some of the best ex MOD property sold privately, are at Europa point.
They're built like a Rock, especially the free standing ones.
Mano
Jim Watt
from.home> wrote:
The thing about lease v freehold is that Gibraltar is largely
apartements and shared buildings wheras the UK is detached
and semi detatched housing.
The lease model works well where there are private and common
areas, and since the trouble with the management company at
Ocean heights ripping the owners off, the model has been for the
owners to be shareholders in the management company so they
own the communal areas jointly and take financial responsibility
for the running of the estate.
>Some of the best ex MOD property sold privately, are at Europa point.
>They're built like a Rock, especially the free standing ones.
Not any more, all MoD property is handed over to the GoG and they
recently put a number out for sale by tender, including ones at Europa
which is a nice area, but windy and a bugger for cable television.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 20:36:25 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
> from.home> wrote:
>
> The lease model works well where there are private and common
> areas, and since the trouble with the management company at
> Ocean heights ripping the owners off, the model has been for the
> owners to be shareholders in the management company so they
> own the communal areas jointly and take financial responsibility
> for the running of the estate.
Over here communal properties, flats, town houses, units, are by law
required to have a Body Corporate. This body is made up of the property
owners, with elected committee members. The chairman, usually, one managing
a real estate agency (they have all the necessary contacts, and know-how,
when things need to get done.Also, they have the administrative machinery at
the ready, lawyers, etc.). But Body Corporate fees, plus living within close
proximity to neighbours, can be a turn off for some Aussies, who are used to
their privacy and space, precious space. Body Corparates are a necessary
evil.
>>Some of the best ex MOD property sold privately, are at Europa point.
>>They're built like a Rock, especially the free standing ones.
>
> Not any more, all MoD property is handed over to the GoG and they
> recently put a number out for sale by tender, including ones at Europa
> which is a nice area, but windy and a bugger for cable television.
Pity, I saw some of the houses proposed for sale to the public at Europa
Point. At the time it was more of a gossip. Some of those individual
free-standing double storey houses looked built for battle. Terrific
architecture, solid stone built, loads of character.
Mano
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
Yes, by dint of Bachelor degree. However the means by which much cash came
into Gib in his time was ultimately not sustainable. The rate of incvome may
have been higher, but I don;t know that the overall sum has not already been
surpassed and in any case current methods are likely to last much longer and
far more likely not to draw disapproving glances.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>
> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> news:el3v81lda3is8mml9...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 21 May 2005 08:41:27 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
>> from.home> wrote:
>>
>>>Housing in Gib's always been a problem, and despite what you may think,
>>>it
>>>has cost locals dearly in weekly rent.
>>
>> You have missed out on the ethos of home ownership, which started
>> with the reclamation and other developments. A lot of people have
>> also bought a first or second home in Spain.
>
> Yes and no. On a visit back home, I explored the possibilities of buying a
> flat at Gib 5, off the plan, as an investment. But "buying a lease" didn't
> grabbed me so much. Here one owns the land and the building. Likewise in
> UK and Spain.
Here we go again!! OH NO IT ISN'T!! In the UK it is VERY common to be a
leaseholder on a property, and there is no disgrace attached. It is merely a
means by which the owneer of the land on which he places a buyilding can
enjoy a (usually modest) income for a few years after sale of the building.
It is the RIGHT of a leaseholder to purchase the freehold outright after
three (or five?) years ownership, for three times (or five?) the annual
ground rent on the land.
Further, it is virtually UNKNOWN in the UK for A FLAT to be freehold, as a
flat shares its walls and ceilings/floors with adjacent flats. IN THE EVENT
that a flat should APPEAR to be freehold it most often is NOT, and there is
in fact a management company set up by the various owners of the flats that
comprise a buiding to act as freeholders on behalf of the owner-occupiers
(or their rent-payers). It is in fact VERY DIFFICULT in the UK to secure a
mortgage on a flat which is completely freehold, as there is NO CONTROL over
the freeholder next door as to what he may or not do with half of the wall
thickness that separates you from him!
You seem to have a ahng-up about freehold and leasehold, it would seem you
are in a minority as many hundreds of thousands of individuals in the UK and
Gib at least appear not to have a problem with the concept at all.
>
> I never figured out how property ownership, is trully governed in Gib. The
> old quarters, Main St., Irish Town, Engineers' Lane, Library Steps, Scudd
> Hill, etc.etc. Dwellings in these parts of Gib seem to be handed over from
> father to son. The same family name may persist for generations. Are some
> quaretrs not based on a lease? I wonder. And if they are, how are leases
> renewed (?). It's all a bit of a mystery to me, I'm afraid.
Go visit www.123resales.com and see how old buildings in the upper town area
are being offeed for sale by govt., but prepare to remain mystified.
>
>> Although the current Government have not built anything, they have
>> taken over a lot of MoD property, and the estate adjacent to Rooke
>> which is quite large.
>
> Yes. BTW, how did those super expensive dwellings up at the Rock, roughly
> above Queens Cinema, come about? Where they privately built on crown land,
> or did the gov have a hand in them?
You mean the continuation of Flat Bastion Rd to the south of Charles V wall.
That was the begining of owner occuaption in Gib in recent times, preceding
Govt-led expansion in the early 80s.
>
> Some of the best ex MOD property sold privately, are at Europa point.
> They're built like a Rock, especially the free standing ones.
They WERE built that way, but after the MOD handed them over (after years of
non-occupation nor maintenace) followed by years of inactivity before coming
on a list for tendering during which time they deteriorated further, many
were little more than piles of rocks when their current owners got their
hands on them. Bought for a low price, huge amounts had to spent on them to
bring them up to habitable standards once more. They were certainly NOT
bargains!
K
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
> news:dZMje.10631$E7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>> news:el3v81lda3is8mml9...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 21 May 2005 08:41:27 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
>>> from.home> wrote:
> Here we go again!! OH NO IT ISN'T!! In the UK it is VERY common to be a
> leaseholder on a property, and there is no disgrace attached. It is merely
> a means by which the owneer of the land on which he places a buyilding can
> enjoy a (usually modest) income for a few years after sale of the
> building. It is the RIGHT of a leaseholder to purchase the freehold
> outright after three (or five?) years ownership, for three times (or
> five?) the annual ground rent on the land.
After three or five yrs, or a lifetime, or generations after, the
leaseholder in Gib is nothing bit a lease holder. And yes, there is, to use
your term, disgrace attached to it. Because in the main, properties are
government owned. And we all know what that means, don't we.
> Further, it is virtually UNKNOWN in the UK for A FLAT to be freehold, as a
> flat shares its walls and ceilings/floors with adjacent flats. IN THE
> EVENT that a flat should APPEAR to be freehold it most often is NOT, and
> there is in fact a management company set up by the various owners of the
> flats that comprise a buiding to act as freeholders on behalf of the
> owner-occupiers (or their rent-payers). It is in fact VERY DIFFICULT in
> the UK to secure a mortgage on a flat which is completely freehold, as
> there is NO CONTROL over the freeholder next door as to what he may or not
> do with half of the wall thickness that separates you from him!
Very funny. The fact is that flats, apartments or any adjoining dwellings,
are on what is called a Strata Title. Of course each "owner" of each "title"
has to respect the adjoining walls etc. But the fact remains that they "own"
the property in question. How the "common" property may be managed may vary
by name, but conclusively it is a main body (in this country called a Body
Corporate) with easy access to all kinds of services required to upkeep and
maintain the property.
> You seem to have a ahng-up about freehold and leasehold, it would seem you
> are in a minority as many hundreds of thousands of individuals in the UK
> and Gib at least appear not to have a problem with the concept at all.
I am neither in Gib nor the UK. And you should really stop comparing Gib
with the UK in this matter. You have just stated that, in the UK, after 2-5
yrs a leaseholder has the option of "buying out" the leaseholder. No such
thing exists in Gib. In fact, I dare say the bulk of dwellings in Gib are
"rented out" by the government, while the rest, the nouveaute rip-offs, are
leased out by the government. The latter being only a more recent
phenomenon.
>> I never figured out how property ownership, is trully governed in Gib.
>> The old quarters...........
> Go visit www.123resales.com and see how old buildings in the upper town
> area are being offeed for sale by govt., but prepare to remain mystified.
I have read countless pages on "property in Gib". I end up with more
unanswered questions I was not even aware of before reading the
"information".
>> Yes. BTW, how did those super expensive dwellings up at the Rock, roughly
>> above Queens Cinema, come about? Where they privately built on crown
>> land, or did the gov have a hand in them?
>
> You mean the continuation of Flat Bastion Rd to the south of Charles V
> wall. That was the begining of owner occuaption in Gib in recent times,
> preceding Govt-led expansion in the early 80s.
Any idea how much they first went on the market for? These leases?
GBP275,000. Wizard of Oz nothing, Elton John must've been thinking of Gib
when he wrote Yellow Brick Road.
>> Some of the best ex MOD property sold privately, are at Europa point.
>> They're built like a Rock, especially the free standing ones.
>
> They WERE built that way, but after the MOD handed them over (after years
> of non-occupation nor maintenace) followed by years of inactivity before
> coming on a list for tendering during which time they deteriorated
> further, many were little more than piles of rocks when their current
> owners got their hands on them. Bought for a low price, huge amounts had
> to spent on them to bring them up to habitable standards once more. They
> were certainly NOT bargains!
I recall seeing some free standing property at Europa, from the outside they
looked alright. But I don't doubt what you say, after all, when
Mediterranean Steps were handed over to the gov, they were in a disgusting
state. I climbed those steps and thoroughly enjoyed the views. But all along
the way, I thought to myself, "how can any gov open such a dangerous place
to the public?"
M
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
> news:XuCje.10196$E7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote
>>
>>> money with Bossano in Government.
>>
>> I undersatnd Bossano's an economist.
>
> Yes, by dint of Bachelor degree. However the means by which much cash came
> into Gib in his time was ultimately not sustainable. The rate of incvome
> may have been higher, but I don;t know that the overall sum has not
> already been surpassed and in any case current methods are likely to last
> much longer and far more likely not to draw disapproving glances.
Gib's getting more than just glances. At any rate, I hope you're right.
M
Jim Watt
from.home> wrote:
>Gib's getting more than just glances.
Yes, its being held up as a model well regulated offshore jurisdiction
by those in the know rather than those in the want.
I'm not sure what the difference in leasing an apartement in Gib
is compared to anywhere else, and after the 150 years is up
chances are it needs knocking down anyway. Whatever it
won't be my problem.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 03:04:09 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
> from.home> wrote:
>
>>Gib's getting more than just glances.
>
> Yes, its being held up as a model well regulated offshore jurisdiction
> by those in the know rather than those in the want.
Gib's not alone, but why the need for an "offshore financial jurisdiction"?
Why not invest that wealth where it is made, paying due taxes, therby
augmenting the wellbeing of the workforce/market which contributed in
creating that wealth in the first place
.
Imposing freedom of movement on a workforce which has had a productive input
in creating wealth, while giving unlimited freedom of movement to the actual
wealth, seems a little lopsided. Don't you agree?
> I'm not sure what the difference in leasing an apartement in Gib
> is compared to anywhere else, and after the 150 years is up
> chances are it needs knocking down anyway. Whatever it
> won't be my problem.
Sorry, that wasn't the point. The point is defending to the hilt in some
instances at great cost, your right to be a tenants in your own, presumed,
homeland. While the "caciques" seem to hold some mishmash kind of titles
hammered out between the forces of the time and themselves.
M
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d7ddsg$md1$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>> news:dZMje.10631$E7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>> news:el3v81lda3is8mml9...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 21 May 2005 08:41:27 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
>>>> from.home> wrote:
>
>> Here we go again!! OH NO IT ISN'T!! In the UK it is VERY common to be a
>> leaseholder on a property, and there is no disgrace attached. It is
>> merely a means by which the owneer of the land on which he places a
>> buyilding can enjoy a (usually modest) income for a few years after sale
>> of the building. It is the RIGHT of a leaseholder to purchase the
>> freehold outright after three (or five?) years ownership, for three times
>> (or five?) the annual ground rent on the land.
>
> After three or five yrs, or a lifetime, or generations after, the
> leaseholder in Gib is nothing bit a lease holder. And yes, there is, to
> use your term, disgrace attached to it. Because in the main, properties
> are government owned. And we all know what that means, don't we.
But if you buy the lease as is your right after three (or five) years, esp
at a non-negotiable fixed price, YOU are the freeholder. So what's your
problem?
>
> I recall seeing some free standing property at Europa, from the outside
> they looked alright. But I don't doubt what you say, after all, when
> Mediterranean Steps were handed over to the gov, they were in a disgusting
> state. I climbed those steps and thoroughly enjoyed the views. But all
> along the way, I thought to myself, "how can any gov open such a dangerous
> place to the public?"
It is in many ways better that Med Steps be delapidated. This prevents many
from going and disturbing the wildlife which would otherwsie be seriously
under threat. Though I agree it should not be in a state so as be dangerous.
OTOH I know of six people who went up there last Saturday (not me). It took
them a couple of hours, they thoroughly enjoyed themselves, and were
thoroughly exhausted at the end of it. Two of them are at the peak of
fitness and aged under 30, the others are in their late 40s/early 50s and of
average fitness - so it's not a case for mountain goats only.
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>
> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> news:6rfl91lhhse13e7eg...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 03:04:09 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
>> from.home> wrote:
>>
>>>Gib's getting more than just glances.
>>
>> Yes, its being held up as a model well regulated offshore jurisdiction
>> by those in the know rather than those in the want.
>
> Gib's not alone, but why the need for an "offshore financial
> jurisdiction"? Why not invest that wealth where it is made, paying due
> taxes, therby augmenting the wellbeing of the workforce/market which
> contributed in creating that wealth in the first place
What about when a nation imposes taxes which, though legal, may be immoral?
> Imposing freedom of movement on a workforce which has had a productive
> input in creating wealth, while giving unlimited freedom of movement to
> the actual wealth, seems a little lopsided. Don't you agree?
I don't follow. You seem to argue that freedom of movement of workforce
should be coupled to limitiations of movement of financial resource. Why?
Where do you draw the lines? I live in once city and work in another. Should
I nkt be limited to spend my money within the city limits where I earned it?
Would this not limit my freedom of movement, if I could not choose to spend
my money where I earned it? If you impose lots of regulation and limitiation
on people, at what point will they stop boethering to produce and all will
be the poorer for it?
K
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
> news:flvme.6658$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:d7ddsg$md1$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>>> news:dZMje.10631$E7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>>> news:el3v81lda3is8mml9...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 21 May 2005 08:41:27 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
>>>>> from.home> wrote:
>>
>>> Here we go again!! OH NO IT ISN'T!! In the UK it is VERY common to be a
>>> leaseholder on a property, and there is no disgrace attached. It is
>>> merely a means by which the owneer of the land on which he places a
>>> buyilding can enjoy a (usually modest) income for a few years after sale
>>> of the building. It is the RIGHT of a leaseholder to purchase the
>>> freehold outright after three (or five?) years ownership, for three
>>> times (or five?) the annual ground rent on the land.
>>
>> After three or five yrs, or a lifetime, or generations after, the
>> leaseholder in Gib is nothing bit a lease holder. And yes, there is, to
>> use your term, disgrace attached to it. Because in the main, properties
>> are government owned. And we all know what that means, don't we.
>
> But if you buy the lease as is your right after three (or five) years, esp
> at a non-negotiable fixed price, YOU are the freeholder. So what's your
> problem?
I don't have a problem. The problem as I see it, is that our fellow
Gibraltarians back home, who are paying rent throughout their whole life.
They don't really have a say as to where in Gib they live. If they negotiate
an exchange with another tenant, it is up to "algun pelotudo" in the Housing
Dept, who can outright negate such an exchange "WITHOUT CAUSE OF REASON".
Have things changed more recently in the colony?
As for your explanation above, re. buying out a landlord's freehold title
after 2-5yrs. Do you mean you can do this in Gib? I don't think so, but if
so, I couldn't be happier.
>> I recall seeing some free standing property at Europa, from the outside
>> they looked alright. But I don't doubt what you say, after all, when
>> Mediterranean Steps were handed over to the gov, they were in a
>> disgusting state. I climbed those steps and thoroughly enjoyed the views.
>> But all along the way, I thought to myself, "how can any gov open such a
>> dangerous place to the public?"
>
> It is in many ways better that Med Steps be delapidated. This prevents
> many from going and disturbing the wildlife which would otherwsie be
> seriously under threat. Though I agree it should not be in a state so as
> be dangerous. OTOH I know of six people who went up there last Saturday
> (not me). It took them a couple of hours, they thoroughly enjoyed
> themselves, and were thoroughly exhausted at the end of it. Two of them
> are at the peak of fitness and aged under 30, the others are in their late
> 40s/early 50s and of average fitness - so it's not a case for mountain
> goats only.
Ole! "It is in many ways better that the Med Steps be delapidated". Now,
you can't be serious.
Wild life? What wild life? Other than those montrous pigs kept at Bruce's
Farm, are they still there? Gib's native wild cat's been long gone. Foxes?
maybe. The apes get culled, as do the seagulls. Any other surviving wildlife
knows better than to over stay its brief welcome in Gib. Most wildlife, and
you could only be referring to migratory birds, stay in Gib long enough to
build up its resources before making the journey north or south. The
swallows may be the exception to the rule, but then, they're too fast and
nimble to get shot at.
Yes, the treck up Med Steps is worth making. The views are spectacular. I
don't think I quite found that seat carved into the Rock. Unless it formed
part of the very last steps as you reach the apex. I gave myself a whole
day. Walking up to Jews Gate, passed the cementary and then onto the steps.
On the way down stopped at St. Michael's Cabbin (life saver), then back home
and almost collapsed!
M
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
> news:_Zzme.6872$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>> news:6rfl91lhhse13e7eg...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 03:04:09 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
>>> from.home> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gib's getting more than just glances.
>>>
>>> Yes, its being held up as a model well regulated offshore jurisdiction
>>> by those in the know rather than those in the want.
>>
>> Gib's not alone, but why the need for an "offshore financial
>> jurisdiction"? Why not invest that wealth where it is made, paying due
>> taxes, therby augmenting the wellbeing of the workforce/market which
>> contributed in creating that wealth in the first place
>
> What about when a nation imposes taxes which, though legal, may be
> immoral?
Immoral? Morality? What is moral about making profits in a given economy and
then stashing the profits away in another entity? The buccaneers are running
wild!
>> Imposing freedom of movement on a workforce which has had a productive
>> input in creating wealth, while giving unlimited freedom of movement to
>> the actual wealth, seems a little lopsided. Don't you agree?
>
> I don't follow. You seem to argue that freedom of movement of workforce
> should be coupled to limitiations of movement of financial resource. Why?
> Where do you draw the lines? I live in once city and work in another.
> Should I nkt be limited to spend my money within the city limits where I
> earned it? Would this not limit my freedom of movement, if I could not
> choose to spend my money where I earned it? If you impose lots of
> regulation and limitiation on people, at what point will they stop
> boethering to produce and all will be the poorer for it?
Wrong. If, as seems to be the case, the movement of finance has no
impediment. Then it should follow, that, movement of
people/workforce/economies should likewise, have no impediment.
Globalization, it would seem, is a one track state of affairs. The term, in
fact, is a misnomer.
I am merely observing.
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
There are many govt-owned properties standing empty because of the increase
in ownership of homes. There are many who would rather buy their own than
live in govt housing, even if they can't afford to buy in Gib and buy in La
Linea / Los Barrios instead. This is not a universally-popular solution as
the commute (a new phenomenon to the Janito) can be onerous when the
artificially-placed border delays come into play.
OTOH there is talk of an (at last, it was part of the Lisbon agreement after
all) of the establishment of green and red channels at the land crossing
which should speed things up, unless the carabineros with their
typewriter-hats choose to search everyone regardless . . .
> As for your explanation above, re. buying out a landlord's freehold title
> after 2-5yrs. Do you mean you can do this in Gib? I don't think so, but if
> so, I couldn't be happier.
I have no idea. However you were going on about the universal nature of
freehold status in the UK, which is not the case.
>
> Ole! "It is in many ways better that the Med Steps be delapidated". Now,
> you can't be serious.
> Wild life? What wild life? Other than those montrous pigs kept at Bruce's
> Farm, are they still there? Gib's native wild cat's been long gone. Foxes?
> maybe.
Not all wild life is animal - plants too come under this category. There are
many species of orchid in Gib, some rare. There are some species of plant
unique to Gib, some others seen in Europe only in Gib. There are rabbits,
foxes have been spotted, some species of owl have returned after many years'
absence and are now breeding after their reintroduction. You really ought to
read the GONHS pages.
> The apes get culled, as do the seagulls. Any other surviving wildlife
> knows better than to over stay its brief welcome in Gib. Most wildlife,
> and you could only be referring to migratory birds, stay in Gib long
> enough to build up its resources before making the journey north or south.
> The swallows may be the exception to the rule, but then, they're too fast
> and nimble to get shot at.
Many of the species seen in Gib are transients. Many of the species seen in
Gib are resident. Were you aware, for instance, that numerically little Gib
has one-third the number of plant species as the whole of the UK? This means
of course, when considering the far greater disparity in area, that
numerically there are far far fewer individuals of any one species.
>
> Yes, the treck up Med Steps is worth making. The views are spectacular. I
> don't think I quite found that seat carved into the Rock. Unless it formed
> part of the very last steps as you reach the apex. I gave myself a whole
> day. Walking up to Jews Gate, passed the cementary and then onto the
> steps. On the way down stopped at St. Michael's Cabbin (life saver), then
> back home and almost collapsed!
St Mick's do a very respectable Aserga Slap and Piri~aka, among others. It's
one of my favourite places for lunch in summer, as it's relatively cool
compared to much of the rock, and when getting there on foot you really
deserve an ice-cool beer. A less arduous means of getting there (and one I
prefer) is to take the cable car to the top and walk down to it. Calf ache
is a major nuisance given the angle of the incline you're walking down.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d7el40$9lf$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>> news:_Zzme.6872$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>> news:6rfl91lhhse13e7eg...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 03:04:09 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
>>>> from.home> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Gib's getting more than just glances.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, its being held up as a model well regulated offshore jurisdiction
>>>> by those in the know rather than those in the want.
>>>
>>> Gib's not alone, but why the need for an "offshore financial
>>> jurisdiction"? Why not invest that wealth where it is made, paying due
>>> taxes, therby augmenting the wellbeing of the workforce/market which
>>> contributed in creating that wealth in the first place
>>
>> What about when a nation imposes taxes which, though legal, may be
>> immoral?
>
> Immoral? Morality? What is moral about making profits in a given economy
> and then stashing the profits away in another entity? The buccaneers are
> running wild!
What's moral about inheritance tax? You work and pay taxes on income. You
save and pay taxes on interest gained (though the saving was made with taxed
money). Then you die and the state takes a chunk out of the capital!!
Immoral? YOU BET!!
>
>>> Imposing freedom of movement on a workforce which has had a productive
>>> input in creating wealth, while giving unlimited freedom of movement to
>>> the actual wealth, seems a little lopsided. Don't you agree?
>>
>> I don't follow. You seem to argue that freedom of movement of workforce
>> should be coupled to limitiations of movement of financial resource. Why?
>> Where do you draw the lines? I live in once city and work in another.
>> Should I nkt be limited to spend my money within the city limits where I
>> earned it? Would this not limit my freedom of movement, if I could not
>> choose to spend my money where I earned it? If you impose lots of
>> regulation and limitiation on people, at what point will they stop
>> boethering to produce and all will be the poorer for it?
>
> Wrong. If, as seems to be the case, the movement of finance has no
> impediment. Then it should follow, that, movement of
> people/workforce/economies should likewise, have no impediment.
> Globalization, it would seem, is a one track state of affairs. The term,
> in fact, is a misnomer.
> I am merely observing.
Hey, me too - I'm only on this planet for a limited time so I'm trying not
to get too involved. But you forget that within the EU there IS freedom of
movement of workforce, and a freedom to practice your skills as a worker
across the EU SUBJECT TO protective legislation. I mean "protective
legislation" not to protect the worker, but to protect the public from
certain groups of workers whose unregulated work might be harmful when
charlatans might be involved.
K
Jim Watt
from.home> wrote:
>What is moral about making profits in a given economy and
>then stashing the profits away in another entity?
Lets say I live in Ireland, pay taxes there etc but also generate
income in New Zealand. Should the Government of Ireland get
a rake off for something that is nothing to do with them?
What about charging income tax on the intrest on savings when
the original capital has already paid tax?
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
> news:qUCme.7221$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:d7ekro$i49$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>>> news:flvme.6658$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:d7ddsg$md1$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>>>>> news:dZMje.10631$E7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:el3v81lda3is8mml9...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 May 2005 08:41:27 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
>>>>>>> from.home> wrote:
>
> There are many govt-owned properties standing empty because of the
> increase in ownership of homes. There are many who would rather buy their
> own than live in govt housing, even if they can't afford to buy in Gib and
> buy in La Linea / Los Barrios instead. This is not a universally-popular
> solution as the commute (a new phenomenon to the Janito) can be onerous
> when the artificially-placed border delays come into play.
Whether in Gib or beyond, for the individual I'm sure, it is far better to
buy and own, than to rent forever and a day.
The border bit, that's something else. My wish is for some understanding to
be reached.Surely the Gibbos and their neighbours might think it's high time
tranquility reigned.
> OTOH there is talk of an (at last, it was part of the Lisbon agreement
> after all) of the establishment of green and red channels at the land
> crossing which should speed things up, unless the carabineros with their
> typewriter-hats choose to search everyone regardless . . .
Green, red, wont give anyone the reassurance they might be looking for. BTW,
whatever happened to the much trumpetted railway system to be constructed
somewhere in the Campo? Wasn't there a UK company involved in the project? I
never heard what came of it.
>> As for your explanation above, re. buying out a landlord's freehold title
>> after 2-5yrs. Do you mean you can do this in Gib? I don't think so, but
>> if so, I couldn't be happier.
>
> I have no idea. However you were going on about the universal nature of
> freehold status in the UK, which is not the case.
I think we got our wires crossed somewhere in the ether. (joke)
> Not all wild life is animal - plants too come under this category. There
> are many species of orchid in Gib, some rare. There are some species of
> plant unique to Gib, some others seen in Europe only in Gib. There are
> rabbits, foxes have been spotted, some species of owl have returned after
> many years' absence and are now breeding after their reintroduction. You
> really ought to read the GONHS pages.
Yes, I suppose I should do some reading. I think there's also a quail (?)
supposedly unique to Gib, it features on one of our coins. On plants, you
remind me. As kids, especially in springtime we'd go up the Rock to pick
daffodils (meaitosorra as we used to call them). More than once I recall
we'd see total strangers, in precarious spots, picking herbs and other
plants. When asked what they were doing, they'd say they were naturalist
(some were Spanish) and that they couldn't find those plants elsewhere. We'd
merrily go on our way home, proudly holding our bunches of daffodils.
> Many of the species seen in Gib are transients. Many of the species seen
> in Gib are resident. Were you aware, for instance, that numerically little
> Gib has one-third the number of plant species as the whole of the UK? This
> means of course, when considering the far greater disparity in area, that
> numerically there are far far fewer individuals of any one species.
That's most interesting. Gib of course, also has, despite it's minute size,
a variety of ambiences or weather one might say. The north and eastern parts
tend to be terribly affected by the Levanter, while the south can be as
sunny and damp free as a sunny Poniente day. So it must be in parts of the
upper Rock.
On the UK, primarily in London proper, friends tell me sparrows are almost a
thing of the past. A sign of pollution I guess.
>> Yes, the treck up Med Steps is worth making. The views are spectacular. I
>> don't think I quite found that seat carved into the Rock. Unless it
>> formed part of the very last steps as you reach the apex. I gave myself a
>> whole day. Walking up to Jews Gate, passed the cementary and then onto
>> the steps. On the way down stopped at St. Michael's Cabbin (life saver),
>> then back home and almost collapsed!
> St Mick's do a very respectable Aserga Slap and Piri~aka, among others.
> It's one of my favourite places for lunch in summer, as it's relatively
> cool compared to much of the rock, and when getting there on foot you
> really deserve an ice-cool beer. A less arduous means of getting there
> (and one I prefer) is to take the cable car to the top and walk down to
> it. Calf ache is a major nuisance given the angle of the incline you're
> walking down.
Granted, that Cabin is almost like a mirage in a dessert. Especially if
you're walking up or down. The cable car is fun and a pretty good view one
gets too. I told you about the time a dear old friend gave me a free ride.
But walking has been my preferred choice on other occasions. I enjoy tracing
my childhood steps. You can take a Gibbo out of the Rock, but you can't take
the Rock out of a Gibbo, you know.
M
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
> news:R7Dme.7248$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:d7el40$9lf$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>>> news:_Zzme.6872$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>>> news:6rfl91lhhse13e7eg...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 03:04:09 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
>>>>> from.home> wrote:
>>
>> Immoral? Morality? What is moral about making profits in a given economy
>> and then stashing the profits away in another entity? The buccaneers are
>> running wild!
>
> What's moral about inheritance tax? You work and pay taxes on income. You
> save and pay taxes on interest gained (though the saving was made with
> taxed money). Then you die and the state takes a chunk out of the
> capital!! Immoral? YOU BET!!
Death Duties we call it hear. Queensland, where numerous elderlies move to
on theirretirement, has abolished this duty, I think. But the truth of the
matter is we can't take it with us when we go. I agree, there are too many
taxes and taxes on taxes again. But, perhaps those taxes wouldn't compound
so much, if there weren't so many "significant" tax dodgers. Money is after
all, minted by the State, the economy is borne of the State. Where are those
tax dodgers running off too? And do the citizens of any given tax haven
benefit? Not likely. The beneficiaries don't know nor care about the
citizens of Tax havens or offshore banking entities.
>> I am merely observing.
> Hey, me too - I'm only on this planet for a limited time so I'm trying not
> to get too involved. But you forget that within the EU there IS freedom of
> movement of workforce, and a freedom to practice your skills as a worker
> across the EU SUBJECT TO protective legislation. I mean "protective
> legislation" not to protect the worker, but to protect the public from
> certain groups of workers whose unregulated work might be harmful when
> charlatans might be involved.
Of course, there is no argument. We've just had a Dr. who left the country,
and left a trail of dead patients behind him. This Dr. apparently had a
history and might have even come in and practiced illegally. Though I'm only
going by memory on what I've heard in news reports.
Another thing which makes this freedom of movement within the EU a load of
cobblers, is the fact that not everyone speaks the same language. To cap it
off, the Fronch have just stuck their nail into the EU.
Racketeering with wealth created in any given economy should cease, no
matter where.
M
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 11:52:17 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
> from.home> wrote:
>
>>What is moral about making profits in a given economy and
>>then stashing the profits away in another entity?
>
> Lets say I live in Ireland, pay taxes there etc but also generate
> income in New Zealand. Should the Government of Ireland get
> a rake off for something that is nothing to do with them?
No, but then you would forfeit any claims, normal citizens of Ireland would
have, to say, medical benefits or free states school for your kids. No
contributing, no rights. NZ on the other hand would be taxing you as their
tax laws would demand, wouldn't they? This is the dilemma facing many
migrants who decide to spend their retirement years in their place of birth.
While they may even get their pensions paid in their place of birth, they
forfeit all other retiree benefits.
> What about charging income tax on the intrest on savings when
> the original capital has already paid tax?
That's simply daylight robbery. But it happens to all of us, here too. Even
on our Pension schemes, where investments are taxed three times. Taxes on
money initailly earned prior to putting into the scheme, taxes on returns,
and taxes when you draw your pension. But who can move their
finances/savings offshore, if not those who need to the least?
M
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
Oh it's well understaood that the times when Madird and/or London are
distracted by other matters are times when the living is best. At those
times tranquility reigns. On a day-to-day basis, going to the shops and
having a coffee, the least said about sovereignty the better.
>
>> OTOH there is talk of an (at last, it was part of the Lisbon agreement
>> after all) of the establishment of green and red channels at the land
>> crossing which should speed things up, unless the carabineros with their
>> typewriter-hats choose to search everyone regardless . . .
>
> Green, red, wont give anyone the reassurance they might be looking for.
> BTW, whatever happened to the much trumpetted railway system to be
> constructed somewhere in the Campo? Wasn't there a UK company involved in
> the project? I never heard what came of it.
I have heard nothing either. The most recent hoo-hah has been about the
funicular project, which we all know (and give thanks) has come to nothing.
> Yes, I suppose I should do some reading. I think there's also a quail (?)
> supposedly unique to Gib, it features on one of our coins.
Barbary partridge, also found in N Africa.
> On plants, you remind me. As kids, especially in springtime we'd go up the
> Rock to pick daffodils (meaitosorra as we used to call them). More than
> once I recall we'd see total strangers, in precarious spots, picking herbs
> and other plants. When asked what they were doing, they'd say they were
> naturalist (some were Spanish) and that they couldn't find those plants
> elsewhere. We'd merrily go on our way home, proudly holding our bunches of
> daffodils
I know which ojnes you mean - mostly white, certainly looks like a miniature
daff. My favourite flower was the other similar looking, but no collar, all
yellow, known among us brats as vinagretta. The stem had a highly acidic sap
which could (literally) dissolve the enamel on your teeth. Consumption
should be restricted! The taste is due to oxalic acid, and I seem to recall
the plant was referred to in my biology classes as Oxala something-or-other.
> That's most interesting. Gib of course, also has, despite it's minute
> size, a variety of ambiences or weather one might say. The north and
> eastern parts tend to be terribly affected by the Levanter, while the
> south can be as sunny and damp free as a sunny Poniente day. So it must be
> in parts of the upper Rock.
Geologically Gib is part of a ridge of limestone that is seen in the Atlas
mountains in N Africa, then in parts of the balearics, then in mainland
Europe again around Montecarlo - we have a few things in common with Monaco
you see! While these habitats are similar, plants and animals which are
highly tuned to this habitat but cannot make the jumps between them have
over the years evolved into different species. There are for example a few
saxifrages which though related are distinct from each other found only on
their own particular rocky outcrops. The same sort of selection that brought
about the Galapagos isolation. Had Darwin kept his eyes open closer to home,
he would not have needed to have gone as far as he did.
> You can take a Gibbo out of the Rock, but you can't take the Rock out of a
> Gibbo, you know.
Very well put!
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d7f1c8$j4b$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>> news:R7Dme.7248$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:d7el40$9lf$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>>>> news:_Zzme.6872$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>>>> news:6rfl91lhhse13e7eg...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 03:04:09 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
>>>>>> from.home> wrote:
>>>
> Death Duties we call it hear. Queensland, where numerous elderlies move to
> on theirretirement, has abolished this duty, I think. But the truth of the
> matter is we can't take it with us when we go. I agree, there are too many
> taxes and taxes on taxes again. But, perhaps those taxes wouldn't compound
> so much, if there weren't so many "significant" tax dodgers. Money is
> after all, minted by the State, the economy is borne of the State. Where
> are those tax dodgers running off too? And do the citizens of any given
> tax haven benefit? Not likely. The beneficiaries don't know nor care about
> the citizens of Tax havens or offshore banking entities.
When tax systems are fair, there is less of a motive for avoidance and the
rates of recovery may be greater. There is the assumption by the tax man
that everyone is on the fiddle. If you appear to be well off, you can afford
taxes. If you appear poor, it is because you are rich and trying to evade
taxes and can pay them too.
Another unfair tax is banding, so that those on higher incomes pay
proportionately more. Why do the better off have to be relatively worse off
by keeping a smaller proportion of their income? Let's face it, if you earn
twice as much as I do and there is a flat rate of tax, you already pay twice
as much tax as I do - why should you pay three times as much?
> Of course, there is no argument. We've just had a Dr. who left the
> country, and left a trail of dead patients behind him. This Dr. apparently
> had a history and might have even come in and practiced illegally. Though
> I'm only going by memory on what I've heard in news reports.
The EU had hoped to introduce a scheme by which medically qualified folk
could practice in each other's patches without registration for up to six
weeks. If true freedom of movement is what they want the best bet is to
ensure uniform, tough registration which would be EU-wide rather than each
place make up their own registers.
>
> Another thing which makes this freedom of movement within the EU a load of
> cobblers, is the fact that not everyone speaks the same language. To cap
> it off, the Fronch have just stuck their nail into the EU.
Hurrah! The proposed EU constitution should have been drowned at conception.
It is the ongoing march of a too-onerous beaurocracy. I for one will not
bemoan its passing.
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>
> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> news:ge4m91hd9i17tktri...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 11:52:17 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
>> from.home> wrote:
>>
>>>What is moral about making profits in a given economy and
>>>then stashing the profits away in another entity?
>>
>> Lets say I live in Ireland, pay taxes there etc but also generate
>> income in New Zealand. Should the Government of Ireland get
>> a rake off for something that is nothing to do with them?
>
> No, but then you would forfeit any claims, normal citizens of Ireland
> would have, to say, medical benefits or free states school for your kids.
> No contributing, no rights. NZ on the other hand would be taxing you as
> their tax laws would demand, wouldn't they? This is the dilemma facing
> many migrants who decide to spend their retirement years in their place of
> birth. While they may even get their pensions paid in their place of
> birth, they forfeit all other retiree benefits.
BUT - if you pay taxes in two places it surely entitles you to benefits in
two places too?
>> What about charging income tax on the intrest on savings when
>> the original capital has already paid tax?
>
> That's simply daylight robbery. But it happens to all of us, here too.
> Even on our Pension schemes, where investments are taxed three times.
> Taxes on money initailly earned prior to putting into the scheme, taxes on
> returns, and taxes when you draw your pension. But who can move their
> finances/savings offshore, if not those who need to the least?
Here pension contributions and their growth are tax free. It is eventual
income from such funds that is taxed, spo we cop it but the once. OTOH
petrol is something else! There is the cost of the petrol, bought with taxed
money. To this is added a fuel tax (a tax being paid with taxed money) and
to the total is added VAT!!! The true cost of the petrol is around 10% of
the money paid.
Ken
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
> news:bQEme.7383$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Whether in Gib or beyond, for the individual I'm sure, it is far better
>> to buy and own, than to rent forever and a day.
>> The border bit, that's something else. My wish is for some understanding
>> to be reached.Surely the Gibbos and their neighbours might think it's
>> high time tranquility reigned.
>
> Oh it's well understaood that the times when Madird and/or London are
> distracted by other matters are times when the living is best. At those
> times tranquility reigns. On a day-to-day basis, going to the shops and
> having a coffee, the least said about sovereignty the better.
The word sovereignty gets over used these days. So long as Gib's a colony,
the word sovereignty shouldn't be part of the local vocabulary.
>> Yes, I suppose I should do some reading. I think there's also a quail (?)
>> supposedly unique to Gib, it features on one of our coins.
>
> Barbary partridge, also found in N Africa.
Of course, I should've known, Barbary. Barbary partridge, Barbary apes. Why
isn't the Neanderthal Skull called the Barbary Skull? I wonder.
> I know which ojnes you mean - mostly white, certainly looks like a
> miniature daff. My favourite flower was the other similar looking, but no
> collar, all yellow, known among us brats as vinagretta. The stem had a
> highly acidic sap which could (literally) dissolve the enamel on your
> teeth. Consumption should be restricted! The taste is due to oxalic acid,
> and I seem to recall the plant was referred to in my biology classes as
> Oxala something-or-other.
Called vinagrera amongst us kids, because it tastes like vinegar. Didn't
know the name of the acid, oxalic. They grow wild over here too.
The scent from those white daffs use to fill up the house, beautiful stuff.
There are numerous amounts of flowers down these parts, but nothing smells
quite as rich as those little daffs. Must be the soil or something.
>> That's most interesting. Gib of course, also has, despite it's minute
>> size, a variety of ambiences or weather one might say. The north and
>> eastern parts tend to be terribly affected by the Levanter, while the
>> south can be as sunny and damp free as a sunny Poniente day. So it must
>> be in parts of the upper Rock.
>
> Geologically Gib is part of a ridge of limestone that is seen in the Atlas
> mountains in N Africa, then in parts of the balearics, then in mainland
> Europe again around Montecarlo - we have a few things in common with
> Monaco you see!
Yes, we know. (sorry, couldn't help myself)
>.......While these habitats are similar, plants and animals which are
>highly tuned to this habitat but cannot make the jumps between them have
>over the years evolved into different species. There are for example a few
>saxifrages which though related are distinct from each other found only on
>their own particular rocky outcrops. The same sort of selection that
>brought about the Galapagos isolation. Had Darwin kept his eyes open closer
>to home, he would not have needed to have gone as far as he did.
Very interesting, who would've guess?
>> You can take a Gibbo out of the Rock, but you can't take the Rock out of
>> a Gibbo, you know.
>
> Very well put!
It's the truth, isn't it.
It's good to chat and disagree or not disagree. But conclusively, the
heart's in the same place.
M
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
> news:61Fme.7390$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:d7f1c8$j4b$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>>> news:R7Dme.7248$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:d7el40$9lf$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>>>>> news:_Zzme.6872$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:6rfl91lhhse13e7eg...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 03:04:09 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
>>>>>>> from.home> wrote:
>>>>
>
> When tax systems are fair, there is less of a motive for avoidance and the
> rates of recovery may be greater. There is the assumption by the tax man
> that everyone is on the fiddle. If you appear to be well off, you can
> afford taxes. If you appear poor, it is because you are rich and trying to
> evade taxes and can pay them too.
Whatever may be said about the tax systems, I'm sure none of us would be too
fussed about being in that tax bracket which would enable us to finance a
scheme to avoid taxes. Then again, if the earnings where to be so rewarding,
why bother?
>> Another thing which makes this freedom of movement within the EU a load
>> of cobblers, is the fact that not everyone speaks the same language. To
>> cap it off, the Fronch have just stuck their nail into the EU.
>
> Hurrah! The proposed EU constitution should have been drowned at
> conception. It is the ongoing march of a too-onerous beaurocracy. I for
> one will not bemoan its passing.
Le EU consti-tu-chon drowned at concep-chon? That's compo-ra-bell to
abor-chon! Monsieur!
M
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d7f9f4$2fe$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>> news:bQEme.7383$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> Of course, I should've known, Barbary. Barbary partridge, Barbary apes.
> Why isn't the Neanderthal Skull called the Barbary Skull? I wonder.
The skull you refer to was unearthed at Gorham's cave in 1848. These were
very early days of archaeology and palaeontology and it's significance was
not appreciated, the skull left festering away in a cupboard somewhere.
Years later a similar skull was unearthed in the Neander Valley, and its
significance WAS appreciated - hence the name. Ironically, had the Gib skull
been discovered later when its significance might have been better
understood we might now be talking abour Gibraltar Man rather than
Neanderthal man.
Speaking of which, is THIS not a relic worth fighting for, rather more than
a drab cloth bearing the coat of arms of the City of Gibraltar? After all,
the Iberian Peninsula was the last stronghold of this hominid, and Gibraltar
was where the first example of these remains were found. Rather than the Gib
Museum have a replica and the British Museum have the original, should it
not be the other way round?
>
>> I know which ojnes you mean - mostly white, certainly looks like a
>> miniature daff. My favourite flower was the other similar looking, but no
>> collar, all yellow, known among us brats as vinagretta. The stem had a
>> highly acidic sap which could (literally) dissolve the enamel on your
>> teeth. Consumption should be restricted! The taste is due to oxalic acid,
>> and I seem to recall the plant was referred to in my biology classes as
>> Oxala something-or-other.
>
> Called vinagrera amongst us kids, because it tastes like vinegar. Didn't
> know the name of the acid, oxalic. They grow wild over here too.
> The scent from those white daffs use to fill up the house, beautiful
> stuff. There are numerous amounts of flowers down these parts, but nothing
> smells quite as rich as those little daffs. Must be the soil or something.
Or the memory . . . you know, nostalgia isn't what it used to be . . . .
>>
>> Very well put!
>
> It's the truth, isn't it.
> It's good to chat and disagree or not disagree. But conclusively, the
> heart's in the same place.
Yes, slightly to the left of the midline in the thoracic avity, the apex at
the fifth intercostal space in the mid-clavicular line. Details details!!!
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
I prefer to call it a mercy killing. It would have have put us out of its
misery.
K
Jim Watt
from.home> wrote:
<snip>
>More than once I recall
>we'd see total strangers, in precarious spots, picking herbs and other
>plants. When asked what they were doing, they'd say they were naturalist
>(some were Spanish) and that they couldn't find those plants elsewhere.
Probably because some bastard had picked them all ...
Why can't people leave things alone? I hate seeing people
picking wild flowers. All the time and effort they have taken
to grow etc ...
BTW the bird is the Barbary Partridge
Jim Watt
from.home> wrote:
>
>"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>news:ge4m91hd9i17tktri...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 11:52:17 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
>> from.home> wrote:
>>
>>>What is moral about making profits in a given economy and
>>>then stashing the profits away in another entity?
>>
>> Lets say I live in Ireland, pay taxes there etc but also generate
>> income in New Zealand. Should the Government of Ireland get
>> a rake off for something that is nothing to do with them?
>
>No, but then you would forfeit any claims, normal citizens of Ireland would
>have, to say, medical benefits or free states school for your kids. No
>contributing, no rights. NZ on the other hand would be taxing you as their
>tax laws would demand, wouldn't they? This is the dilemma facing many
>migrants who decide to spend their retirement years in their place of birth.
>While they may even get their pensions paid in their place of birth, they
>forfeit all other retiree benefits.
But my theoretical Irish citizen does pay all his taxes etc on income
generated in Ireland, so he is entitled to the same benefits as the
rest - however lets say he buys a holiday home in Gibraltar, it
doubles in value and he sells it, why should he pay money to the
Irish Government which has had nothing to do with the property?
>> What about charging income tax on the intrest on savings when
>> the original capital has already paid tax?
>
>That's simply daylight robbery. But it happens to all of us, here too.
And the European Savings Directive means it happens to everyone
in Europe - that does not make it fair or acceptable.
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
> news:saFme.7392$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>> news:ge4m91hd9i17tktri...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 11:52:17 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
>>> from.home> wrote:
>
>
> BUT - if you pay taxes in two places it surely entitles you to benefits in
> two places too?
Some have worries, others wish they had.
> Here pension contributions and their growth are tax free. It is eventual
> income from such funds that is taxed, spo we cop it but the once. OTOH
> petrol is something else! There is the cost of the petrol, bought with
> taxed money. To this is added a fuel tax (a tax being paid with taxed
> money) and to the total is added VAT!!! The true cost of the petrol is
> around 10% of the money paid.
We have our own oil, but we still pay world parity rates, courtesy of added
taxes. bear in mind the distances we cover in this country, if only going to
work, fuel expenses can and are a huge burden on most. On the pension issue
you're also doing better than us. To cap it off, your currency value is
ridiculously over rated. Am not too sure you have much to complain about
when comparisons are made between your and my neck of the woods.
P.S. We currently have conx probs with internet. Hope this msg gets thru
soon.
M
Lynx
I think there's a lot to be said for a "strong united Europe". But then, we
need to define Europe, I guess. If it's going to become anything like the
Eurovision contest, I bow out.
M
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
If he originally earned the money in Ireland, and he lives in Ireland, I
suppose the investment in Gib would be seen as an Irish investment, carrying
with it all due Irish capital gains tax rules. But the small fry is not so
much in question. Rather the big fish, that heads off with massive gains
made in one economy, avoiding due taxes back into that economy.
>>> What about charging income tax on the intrest on savings when
>>> the original capital has already paid tax?
>>
>>That's simply daylight robbery. But it happens to all of us, here too.
>
> And the European Savings Directive means it happens to everyone
> in Europe - that does not make it fair or acceptable.
We come to accept that any profit is subject to taxes. The problem is that
tax laws seem to be made to tax the mid and lower end of the economy.
M
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
> news:pSGme.7421$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:d7f9f4$2fe$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>>> news:bQEme.7383$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>
>> Of course, I should've known, Barbary. Barbary partridge, Barbary apes.
>> Why isn't the Neanderthal Skull called the Barbary Skull? I wonder.
>
> The skull you refer to was unearthed at Gorham's cave in 1848. These were
> very early days of archaeology and palaeontology and it's significance was
> not appreciated, the skull left festering away in a cupboard somewhere.
> Years later a similar skull was unearthed in the Neander Valley, and its
> significance WAS appreciated - hence the name. Ironically, had the Gib
> skull been discovered later when its significance might have been better
> understood we might now be talking abour Gibraltar Man rather than
> Neanderthal man.
I know the story and the utter disrespect if not ignorance the Brits
apportioned to the discovery. I will remind you that when Napoleon
Bonaparte's expedition to Egypt discovered the Roseta Stone, they did what
any western civilised people would do. That was back in 1799, may I remind
you?.
The late Dorothy Ellicott in her book Our Gibraltar (I think is the name),
made reference to the skulls, woman and child's, at the start of her book.
She then went on to say that she would elaborate later, in the book, as why
it was not named the Gibraltar skull. Well, she gave the whole issue a big
miss, even later in the book. On a visit to Gib, I came across her at the
entrance to the museum, but I didn't have the heart to question her. After
all, the responsibility rests with the powers that be.
> Speaking of which, is THIS not a relic worth fighting for, rather more
> than a drab cloth bearing the coat of arms of the City of Gibraltar? After
> all, the Iberian Peninsula was the last stronghold of this hominid, and
> Gibraltar was where the first example of these remains were found. Rather
> than the Gib Museum have a replica and the British Museum have the
> original, should it not be the other way round?
There's no comparison. They are both relics. One belongs to humanity, even
if it goes under a false name, credit due to the English. The other is far
from a drab of cloth, unless of course, you have no sense of history, which
you must, given your heritage.
>> Called vinagrera amongst us kids, because it tastes like vinegar. Didn't
>> know the name of the acid, oxalic. They grow wild over here too.
>> The scent from those white daffs use to fill up the house, beautiful
>> stuff. There are numerous amounts of flowers down these parts, but
>> nothing smells quite as rich as those little daffs. Must be the soil or
>> something.
>
> Or the memory . . . you know, nostalgia isn't what it used to be . . . .
Could be, but it's a well known fact that even roses don't have much of a
scent down these parts.
>> It's the truth, isn't it.
>> It's good to chat and disagree or not disagree. But conclusively, the
>> heart's in the same place.
>
> Yes, slightly to the left of the midline in the thoracic avity, the apex
> at the fifth intercostal space in the mid-clavicular line. Details
> details!!!
Ah! You ruined it!
M
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 13:47:51 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
> from.home> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>More than once I recall
>>we'd see total strangers, in precarious spots, picking herbs and other
>>plants. When asked what they were doing, they'd say they were naturalist
>>(some were Spanish) and that they couldn't find those plants elsewhere.
>
> Probably because some bastard had picked them all ...
>
> Why can't people leave things alone? I hate seeing people
> picking wild flowers. All the time and effort they have taken
> to grow etc ...
Yes, you're right. I suppose kids don't have such a view of nature, so we'd
go picking. Mind you, these things would grow anywhere and everywhere, so it
wasn't like we were menacingan endangered species. Those herbalists picking
away, we'd see them in places we daren't go, dangerous spots.
> BTW the bird is the Barbary Partridge
Got it. I wonder, like the apes, whether they've been brought in from
Africa. How's our colony of apes doing in Germany, I wonder?
M
Jim Watt
from.home> wrote:
>If he originally earned the money in Ireland, and he lives in Ireland, I
>suppose the investment in Gib would be seen as an Irish investment, carrying
>with it all due Irish capital gains tax rules. But the small fry is not so
>much in question.
have you seen the price of housing here? Some people have made
serious money. However if the original money waz tax paid in Ireland
why should their government benefit from what happens overseas?
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
The property market's gone through the roof everywhere. The local young
generation have Buckley's of getting into the property market. Many, in
fact, are staying at home past their 30's.
When you see travellers being queried on how much they are transferring
overseas, when a newly arrived in Gib goes to open a bank acc. he's put thru
the 3rd degree. So, one might figure that earned money is, in part, property
of the country/economy it was initially made or earned in. I don't think we
are as free with transfer of funds as we'd like to think we are. Certainly
not the small fry. The big fish, well, they make the laws, don't they?
M
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
No, far worse, far far more corrupt probably, IMHO before anyone issues a
writ.
K
Jim Watt
from.home> wrote:
>The property market's gone through the roof everywhere.
When I bought a three bedroomed house in the UK for 10k it
seemed a hell of lot of money at the time
Opening bank accounts in Gibraltar has become a major exercise
due to the paranoia about 'money laundering' its by far easier
everywhere else.
Sadly we also have a lot less choice, and competition these
days. Its an aspect of living in a 'fiscal paradise' that does not
show.
Being a good conservative I believe that my money is mine to
spend as I please and after paying the minimum amount to
Government to provide security, healthcare, and clean streets
they should keep their hands off of the rest.
Lynx
>>>> abor-chon! Monsieur!
>>>
>>> I prefer to call it a mercy killing. It would have have put us out of
>>> its misery.
>>
>> I think there's a lot to be said for a "strong united Europe". But then,
>> we need to define Europe, I guess. If it's going to become anything like
>> the Eurovision contest, I bow out.
>
> No, far worse, far far more corrupt probably, IMHO before anyone issues a
> writ.
>
> K
You're there, I'm not, you should know better.
M
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
Agreed
M
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
Just because of my closer proximity does not make me more likely to be
correct. It just means I am likely to ahve more info thrown at me with which
to reach my conclusions.
I appreciate that EU reform is needed if only (and it seems a jolly good
reason) that as the EU expands it is increasingly unlikely that unanimity is
likely to be agreed on anything. It is surely more difficult to achieve
unanimity between 25 than between 3! Therefore the "everyone or no-one"
attitude of the EU MUST change is the EU is to survive, for without being
able to respond to new challenges it will fail.
What I imagine would be better than evern more layer upon layer of
regulation is the complete opposite. Rather than try to impose uniformity
throughout, the EU should recognise that, in such a wide area with such
differing climatic conditions and such differing needs, different solutions
need to be applied to different areas. Can you really imagine ONE set of
regulation to fit all the way from Ireland to the Bulgaria, from the frozen
tundra of N Scandinavia to Crete?
Why burden the S Europeans with measures regardin frozen water pipes when
they will never have them? Why burden people from the frozen north with
regualtions about the growing of olives?
The EU should restrict itself to having a relatively narrow set of core
values to which all must adhere - a free trade area without imposition of
tarriffs, free movement of people and skills, universal health care within
its borders for all its citizens when visiting different countries, uniform
adoption of human rights - -that sort of broad-brush. The minutiae of
personal taxation, of working hours, of the shape of bananas on the shelves
of supermarkets, the units of measure by which one buts and sells biscuits
etc the EU should keep well out of as really it matters not a jot in the
overall scheme of things and are decisions which people can take locally to
suit them. Countries should be free to partake of schemes that they wish to,
and shoiuld be able to expemt themselves from those schemes they do not wish
to be part of without preventing other countries from partaking of them if
they so wish.
The EU would then become a loose federation of states with a common set of
core values, and remain a body which celbrates diversity and competition
rather than uniformly boring and have stifled all and every competition in
the name of a level playing field.
Spleen vented for a second occasion in as many days.
Ken
DCC
should be given a one way ticket to Med Steps.
Or better still! Send them to Tony Blair c/o Sheffield.
>
> Ole! "It is in many ways better that the Med Steps be delapidated". Now,
> you can't be serious.
> Wild life? What wild life? Other than those montrous pigs kept at Bruce's
> Farm, are they still there? Gib's native wild cat's been long gone. Foxes?
> maybe. The apes get culled, as do the seagulls. Any other surviving
> wildlife knows better than to over stay its brief welcome in Gib. Most
> wildlife, and you could only be referring to migratory birds, stay in Gib
> long enough to build up its resources before making the journey north or
> south. The swallows may be the exception to the rule, but then, they're
> too fast and nimble to get shot at.
DCC
done by Vladimir going to the counter at Barclays in Main Street, but in
much more subtle and sophisticated ways.
But I'm sure there is no money laundering going on in Gib. So not to worry!
hur hur.
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:7v4o91d750ndkrc8i...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 02:26:40 GMT, "Lynx" <calp...@home.away
> from.home> wrote:
>
> Opening bank accounts in Gibraltar has become a major exercise
> due to the paranoia about 'money laundering' its by far easier
> everywhere else.
>