algy Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Nick, you cant hand something back to someone who never had them in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 If we start down this historical route, the US might have to give back Texas and Arizona etc; mind you the Mexicans are taking them over anyway! There used to be an internationally accepted legal term "by right of conquest", where the victor took the ground placed their flag on it, and if anyone wanted it, they had to fight for it - so I guess the balls in the Argie's court - assuming they've got any! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wireboy Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Sean Penn should stick to what he does best and that is making crap films and keep his nose out of Falkland politics. I really don't see an argument for the Falklands. The locals want to stay British end off. No negotiation. No matter how much pressure is applied from crap actors that make crap films. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Sean Penn should stick to what he does best and that is making crap films and keep his nose out of Falkland politics. I really don't see an argument for the Falklands. The locals want to stay British end off. No negotiation. No matter how much pressure is applied from crap actors that make crap films. Well said! WB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 As a republican; surely you too would be in favour of handing them over Nick? After all, they are a consequence of our monarchy driven, imperialistic age aren't they??? If you go back far enough, all national territories are the result of empire building by unelected leaders ( otherwise the argie president would be spouting her drivel in the language of, for example the Diaguitas, Huarpes,Sanavirones,Omaguacas, Atacamas, Huarpes or Mapuches rather than Spanish.) The Falklands have been British long enough for the historical background not to matter and for them to remain under the control of the UK , and, of course, eventually the UR (United Republic ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 The Falklands have been British long enough for the historical background not to matter and for them to remain under the control of the UK , and, of course, eventually the UR (United Republic ) The Falkland islanders were only granted UK citizenship in 1983. If ownership of land was only down to asking the views of the people who live there, then Gypsies would still be living on Dale Farm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 The Falkland islanders were only granted UK citizenship in 1983. If ownership of land was only down to asking the views of the people who live there, then Gypsies would still be living on Dale Farm. 1) Citizenship is a red herring.It is a British Overseas Territory and has been for far longer 29 years. 2) Dale Farm. Another irrelevancy, ownership of land does not include the right to ignore the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 The Falklands are British. The inhabitants speak english with a lancashire accent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 1) Citizenship is a red herring.It is a British Overseas Territory and has been for far longer 29 years. 2) Dale Farm. Another irrelevancy, ownership of land does not include the right to ignore the law. Nick, you are misreading the post. I said If ownership of land was only down to asking the views of the people Not sure where law breaking comes into that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Not sure where law breaking comes into that. Planning law, not to do with who owns it - but what they do on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Still not getting the point Nick. Repeat for the second time, . If ownership of land was only down to asking the views of the people who live there, then Gypsies would still be living on Dale Farm Now replace Gypsies and Dale farm with anything you want. Jews, Arabs, Chinese, Palestine, Israel, Tibet.etc etc Still not sure how you got on to Planning laws from that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Still not sure how you got on to Planning laws from that. In that case, may I suggest you look up the news reports about Dale Farm - the problem was related to the lack of planning permission, not the ownership of the land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 May I borrow that wall when you have finished with it Wolfie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 May I borrow that wall when you have finished with it Wolfie There's a queue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Timeline - Control of the Falkland islands February 1764 – April 1767 France January 1765 – July 1770 Great Britain April 1767 – February 1811 Spain September 1771 – May 1776 Great Britain February 1811 – August 1829 None August 1829 – December 1831 Argentina United Provinces December 1831 – January 1832 United States January 1832 – December 1832 None December 1832 – January 1833 Argentine Confederation January 1833 – August 1833 United Kingdom August 1833 – January 1834 None January 1834 – April 1982 United Kingdom April 1982 – June 1982 Argentina June 1982 – present United Kingdom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 so UK ahead of Argentine 5 -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 so UK ahead of Argentine 5 -3 Yeah!, like- United kingdom = 188 years Argentina = 3 years (not being pedantic and counting months). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 So wnen did numbers of years dictate who owns the land? :unsure: After all Aboriginals were in Australia 45,000 years before the Europeans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 So wnen did numbers of years dictate who owns the land? :unsure: After all Aboriginals were in Australia 45,000 years before the Europeans. Who the Heck suggested that right of occupation relates to the number of years spent on the islands - I certainly never and I don't think Sid did either, merely an exercise in displaying approximate data, anyway Wolfie how do you know that there weren't others in Australia prior to the Aborigines, by analyzing DNA from people in all regions of the world, it has been concluded that all humans alive today are descended from a single man (not sure how he managed it without a woman?) who lived in Africa around 60,000 - 90,000 years ago, a man also known as Y-chromosomal Adam, so I suppose you could say that Australia was colonised initially by the Africans. :grin: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 I must apologise alg, I was mistaken into thinking that your post regarding how many years the British have occupied the Falklands compared to Argentina had a point to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 I reckon we should get our government leaders and theirs together in a ring and let them slug it out royal rumble style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 I must apologise alg, I was mistaken into thinking that your post regarding how many years the British have occupied the Falklands compared to Argentina had a point to it. Apology accepted Wolfie and "Thank you for your opinion" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 I reckon we should get our government leaders and theirs together in a ring and let them slug it out royal rumble style. Why do they have to slug it out? They could do eenie meenie minie mo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Why do they have to slug it out? They could do eenie meenie minie mo! Can't do that now Cleo, not PC, matter of fact! seen to be downright racial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.