Some stuff officially revealed under the 30 year rule about the Falklands war, nothing tho that wasn't already known or rumored tho.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20800447
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20817088
|
|
As mentioned in an earlier thread I've been re-arranging my bookshelf - One of the books that have survived the cull was the Secret War for the Falklands....Nigel West - very, very good book.
|
I wasn't Margaret Thatcher's biggest fan, but had the PM of the day been anyone else I doubt very much if Britain would have retaken the Falklands.
The papers from the enquiry include transcriptions of Thatcher's powerful account of events. Her surprise at the invasion (because it was such a "stupid" thing to do) was only surpassed by the Argentines' surprise that Britain would bother to turf them out.
|
I was working in Argentina quite a lot in the early/mid 90s which was not, in any way, a great time for Argentina.
There was the occasional nutter, like there is everywhere, but most of the people I was around were either slightly embarrassed about the whole thing or angry that their leader at the time would do something so ridiculous. Mind you, Galtieria left them bigger problems than that.
I don't think I ran into any Falkland oriented hostility which is remarkable especially because the Argentinians can be aggressive.
I don't know where all these banner waving enthusiasts that BA seems to have these days have come from.
|
Yes, that was Mrs Thatcher's greatest moment. What may not be remembered by everyone isn't so much the iffy behaviour of the US and France before they reluctantly did the right thing more or less (although it was US encouragement that made the strutting prat Galtieri go for it in the first place). It is the utter hostility to this country of almost everyone on the left here, citing in many cases the cheeping of third world countries all in favour of Argentina's 'anti-imperialist' (Yee ha ha ha) stand, and the faffing UN. I have never forgotten the donkey-like moronic hostility of Labour party and far-left folk of my acquaintance, driven largely by a confused obsession with the person of the prime minister. Very few have admitted they were wrong to this day.
It was the final nail in socialism's coffin for me. People have been calling me a reactionary and warmonger ever since, the idiots. They couldn't even see the joke of Mrs Thatcher, a natural friend of the junta, suddenly discovering that it was a fascist dictatorship, while the left, which had been denouncing it as a fascist dictatorship, suddenly rechristened it a pathetic third world victim of British imperialism. Happy and hilarious days for me but a bit confusing to many thick, lazy-minded bigots who thought themselves politically rational.
|
>> by the Argentines' surprise that Britain would bother to turf them out.
They were convinced, by all the "signs and signals" we had given out, that we wanted rid of the place.
Sadam Hussein was similarly convinced, after a meeting with the US ambassador, that the USA would be happy for an invasion of Kuwait.
Stalin had all his spies, who tried to foretell the German invasion, shot for spreading false information.
|
Two other bits of Thatcher-related old news in the comic. One (Thatcher enthusiasts look away now) is that she spent 11 New Year's Eves on the trot in the company of egregious nonce, toady and super-vulgarian Jimmy Savile. Her dark side perhaps.
The other is that her son Mark and husband Denis had left the Tahat hotel in Tamanrasset with an unpaid bill of thousands of dinars, much of it for drinks. I had the dubious pleasure of staying at the Tahat for three days a few years earlier - 1978 I think - when it hadn't even opened and the cement was still wet - a hack with others on an Algerian government junket. We hacks couldn't get a proper drink there - the Tamanrasset wilaya was 'dry' so you had to have your own bottle - but doubtless special arrangements had been made - it's a posh hotel meant for rich tourists - by the time the Thatcher sprog got lost in the desert. I'd like to have seen the alleged 'fracas' between British diplomats and the Tahat bar staff though. No one is stroppier than an Algerian barman or waiter who thinks he's been dissed. I hope none of the diplomats got their clothes torn or ties pulled tight.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 28 Dec 12 at 15:41
|
Oh, and Mrs T is said to have insisted on paying British search costs for Mark and little Mme or Mlle Moutet, eventually lashing out £2,000.
That would surely have been a drop in the ocean even then, and it must have cost the Algerians millions - they had aircraft, helicopters and ground units combing a huge area in the middle of the world's biggest desert. Did this country reimburse them I wonder? Perhaps. Probably even.
|
Anyone who thinks that the USA ever acts in support of anything other than its own interest should take a lesson from their government's initial reluctance to support the UK in this, as in other post-war events (Suez?).
This, however we may regret it, is the right and proper thing to do.
A government should put its own people's interest first.
It's a pity successive UK administrations have not learnt this principle.
|
|
There was loads of support from the US during the Flaklands war, including the provision of up to date air to air missiles, intell support, and provision of services at Wideawake air-base, which although nominally British was run by the Americans.
|
No government ever acts other than in its own interests including that of the UK.
The Falklands is not some sort of magnificent military victory but rather an absolute failure of diplomacy. Over a 1000 people died in a squabble over some islands nobody had heard of until then. That some sort of peaceful compromise could not have been achieved is ridiculous. If some sort of join sovereignty deal had been worked out years earlier the whole mess could have been averted could have been avoided and those 1000 people would still be alive.
|
|
Ah! - we have an appeaser in the camp ... orf with his head.
|
|
Norwich is right do Dog keep his head.
|
|
War is always that - but the Falklands' campaign was the first modern war fought with the longest supply lines in the history of such warfare - It was a remarkable victory by any measure, even the Israelis, Russians and the US acknowledge that.
|
Whatever the failures that lead to the Falklands invasion no nation state on earth with the means to react in the strongest terms could have ignored it without admitting to a humiliating defeat. The only deaths we need to mourn are those of the 255 British casualties, the Argentine losses were the fault of none but themselves, if you can't take the heat don't light the fire.
However much it might horrify the PC mob you go into a war with the intention of killing as many enemy troops as possible in the shortest time. That's how you win and how you preserve the lives of your own side.
|
>>Over a 1000 people died in a squabble over some islands nobody had
>> heard of until then.
>>
Well, I had certainly heard of them, so that statement is incorrect for a start!
|
>> If some sort of join sovereignty deal had been worked out years earlier the whole mess could have been averted
The Falklanders refuse to accept anything other than British sovereignty. Not for any great reason, other than preferring the status quo.
The Argentinians refuse to accept British Sovereignty, and that since the population is not indigenous, their preference is not significant. Kind of ignoring that the population of Argentina is largely non-indigenous as well.
They've only got BA because they beat up on the Portuguese.
Go on then, find a compromise there...
Now, does anyone know why Argentina cares? Apart from emotional indignation?
Its because they want a southern border, and since they are currently on the losing side of their ongoing struggle with Chile for the Southern-most point of South America, then the only other option is the Falklands.
That southern border would have some significance in the claiming of Antarctica territory and the deposits within it.
|
|
And by the way Pinochet, and therefore Chile, supported Mrs Thatcher and therefore the UK, because at the point they were days or weeks away from war with Argentina over exactly that southern-most point.
|
>>Over a 1000 people died in a squabble
I'm not sure trivialising the war lessen it's impact on those involved, nor makes the war wrong.
>>over some islands nobody had heard of until then.
I'm not sure how that's relevant, should we only defend the well known places?
>>That some sort of peaceful compromise could not have been achieved is ridiculous.
It's not at all, they want control over a country that's wants nothing to do with them not sure how there could be compromise.
|
>> The Falklands is not some sort of magnificent military victory but rather an absolute failure
>> of diplomacy.
Its both a magnificent military victory and an absolute failure of diplomacy. Diplomacy is by far the harder to achieve.
|
CGN said upthread:
>> No government ever acts other than in its own interests including that of the UK.
All governments should do this routinely, but the United States is remarkable in often deliberately acting against its own interests in favour of protecting a third party.
How many of its vetoes in the UN security council have been against motions directed against itself, compared to motions directed against one of its allies? These vetoes are counter productive to the US itself, yet are a cornerstone of its foreign policy charade objectives.
Some might view this as evidence of undue influence of powerful pressure groups on US Foreign Policy. Others say that such claims are yet another worthless "conspiracy theory". I couldn't possible comment.
|
>> in this, as in other post-war events (Suez?).
We were wrong to go into Suez.
>> This, however we may regret it, is the right and proper thing to do.
>> A government should put its own people's interest first.
>> It's a pity successive UK administrations have not learnt this principle.
the Germans put themselves first in 1914 and 1939. Putting yourself first is NO principle for going to war and killing people. Ever. Self defense is the ONLY justifiable foundation.
|
>>Self defense is the ONLY justifiable foundation.
Protection of an innocent yet weak third party territory?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 28 Dec 12 at 18:16
|
>> >>Self defense is the ONLY justifiable foundation.
>>
>> Protection of an innocent yet weak third party territory?
For the purposes of the Falklands islands, since they claim to be British i guess that's self defense,.
I wish the protestants of Northern Ireland stopped claiming to be British however, The Argies can have them. Swopsies perhaps?
|
|
Wouldn't want the expense.
|
... the Argentine losses were the fault of none but themselves.
Of their leaders, maybe. But of the conscripts sent underequipped into the southern winter to do their bidding? Hardly.
When I switched on Today at 0812 or so, having missed the news, and heard two old buffers talking about Thatcher there was a brief moment when I thought she must be dead. Took me a minute or so to twig that it's Thirty Years Rule week, so Eighties politics is, fleetingly, newsworthy again while there's nothing else going on.
|
|
The Falkland Islands sit on a big shallow platau similar to the North Sea. It may not economically viable to exploit any resourses there are yet, but one day it will. Why else would anyone want to fight over the possession of a few desolate remote islands? And you can forget the rights of a few islanders, the government would abandon them in a second if it suited them. Look at what has happened to island populations when we wanted air bases or atomic bomb test areas.
|
They were considered "natives"
Mind you we used Australia as a test site!
|
>> They were considered "natives"
>>
>>
>> Mind you we used Australia as a test site!
>>
In areas populated by Native Australians who had lived there for tens of thousands of years before the Europeans arrived.
www.maralingaclassaction.com.au/web/page/viewarticle/news/428
|
Yes, there are potential oil resources and actual fish ones. And there's the electronic surveillance potential in a fairly empty quarter, and the foothold in Antarctica. Not to mention the original value of the Falklands, as a coaling/refitting station for ships plying the very gritty southern route.
These things do mount up surely. But I don't think we know the full story of what happened. I do believe the US role was very murky on some level, and that heads rolled here to protect the special relationship which was under severe threat.
Some anarchist buddies of mine, given to glib conspiracy theory, were convinced the whole thing was a put-up job between the British and American governments with encouragement from France, Aerospatiale and the predecessors of BAE Systems, with the object of seeing how the kit and the chaps would perform when used in anger. 'The British agreed to take it on the nose,' they said.
I think it was a more complex sort of cock-up along similar lines to what CGN suggests above. But that anarchist line has a sort of nagging, spine-chilling verisimilitude. Realpolitik is capable of that sort of thing.
|
Proxy wars are the ultimate test and proving ground.
I don't think the Falklands episode proved anything that was in doubt from a military kit point of view other than our surface ships had inadequate air defences.
I go with the cock up by neglect theory.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 28 Dec 12 at 19:22
|
|
AC, it's not the first time I've seen such ideas, problem is it wasn't such such a clear cut thing. Take one and the nose is one thing if it's another country easily overcome, that's not the case here. Doesn't hold much water for that with me, amongst other reasons.
|
No, absolutely, I didn't buy that idea at all. Politicians always take grave decisions for several convergent reasons, hardly ever for one alone however pressing it may appear.
Some apparently serious people claimed that Mrs Thatcher wanted the war to help her win the next election. Any war of any description is far too risky to undertake for such a piffling reason. I think the US managed to drop her in it calculating that she (and the armed forces) would swallow, and she had no choice but to order the risky and expensive operation to drive out the Argentinians while twisting Reagan's gonads to damn well shape up and lend a goddam hand here. Something a bit like that.
|
>>
>> Some apparently serious people claimed that Mrs Thatcher wanted the war to help her win
>> the next election. Any war of any description is far too risky to undertake for
>> such a piffling reason.
Yep seen that as well, I've seen it claimed she staged the whole thing to win the election encouraged them to invade and everything. They were deadly serious about it being true as well.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 28 Dec 12 at 19:43
|
>> claimed she staged the whole thing to win the election encouraged them to invade and everything. They were deadly serious about it being true as well.
Yes, deluded. Two heavyweight books and a shedload of silly pamphlets, articles, militant songs and demented speeches.
RIP the British Left, old and new alike. It's never even looked like recovering in my eyes. 'Head of bone and heart of stone,' Nancy Mitford unkindly said of her fascist sister Unity. Doesn't just apply to fascist ladies, what?
|
|
Callaghan actually sent a task force in 1977 when an invasion was threatened and he was of the left.
|
Yup, David Owen foreign minister at the time.
But both men were regarded as right-wing old labour by much of the rank and file.
I have nothing against proper meaningful left politics as such even when I don't go along with them. But the ludicrous posturing over the Falklands wasn't anything like that was it? It was tabloid personalized garbage spouted by people conceitedly certain of the wisdom and correctness of their own attitudes and insight. Made me want to throw up.
|
It was tabloid personalized garbage spouted by people conceitedly certain of the wisdom and
>> correctness of their own attitudes and insight.
That accurate summary could be levelled at the vast majority of senior politicians we've been saddled with over the last 30 years, you'd think they could walk on water such is their absolute certainty in their own wisdom and rightness.
|
>> That accurate summary could be levelled at the vast majority of senior politicians we've been saddled with over the last 30 years,
Wpuldn't say that myself gb. Most if not quite all mainstream ministers and the like are more thoughtful than that. Labour front bench for the most part refrained from unpatriotic positions on the task force. But the Labour party was in the grip of an ideological tussle at the time between the two wings, and some of the left figureheads adopted a more anti-British line than they really should have.
I was really talking though of the self-labelled left rank and file, disgracefully followed and encouraged by left 'intellectuals'. Tchah!
|
>> I have nothing against proper meaningful left politics as such even when I don't go
>> along with them. But the ludicrous posturing over the Falklands wasn't anything like that was
>> it? It was tabloid personalized garbage spouted by people conceitedly certain of the wisdom and
>> correctness of their own attitudes and insight. Made me want to throw up.
>>
Nothing's changed then. It's like the modern political correctness.
|
Apocryphal?
Maybe, but sounds true to character.
Unsent wire from Maggie to General Galtieri:
“In a few days the British flag will be flying over Port Stanley. In a few days also your eyes and mine will be reading the casualty lists. On my side, grief will be tempered by the knowledge that these men died for freedom, justice and the rule of law. And on your side? Only you can answer that question.”
|
I'm glad some of this stuff is coming out whilst she's still alive, bearing in mind she could have had people 'spinning' like no tomorrow, but didn't.
I'm also glad there's people like AC who although might well have (or did have) Left principles, can still see the wood for the trees.
I'm absolutely convinced that history will prove an enormous amount of her detractors badly wrong.
|
>>I'm absolutely convinced that history will prove an enormous amount of her detractors badly wrong.
I am sure that you're correct. Certainly history has proven that Scargill wasn't the saint the miners believed him to be.
And on that subject, Poll Tax; what *was* the issue with a tax based on people using the services?
Other than people currently paying nothing who would have to pay something, I never did really spot the philosophical flaw with it.
|
>> And on that subject, Poll Tax; what *was* the issue with a tax based on
>> people using the services?
>>
>> Other than people currently paying nothing who would have to pay something, I never did
>> really spot the philosophical flaw with it.
>>
Couldn't agree more.
There was a political angle of course, if you weren't registered anywhere (and therefore couldn't vote) you wouldn't have to pay the poll tax....without getting too political on here, you can work out which party didn't fancy that idea too much.
|
And where are we now? You have to register how many people are in your home and pay your council tax for that home band/people or you dont get registered to vote.
Poll tax seemed fair to me.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 29 Dec 12 at 17:14
|
Weren't the objections* related to how it wasn't connected to your ability to pay?
* Before my time, so I've no axe to grind either way.
|
>> And where are we now? You have to register how many people are in your
>> home and pay your council tax for that home band/people or you dont get registered
>> to vote.
>>
>> Poll tax seemed fair to me.
Up to a point Lord Copper. It was regressive, more so than the rates which at least took more money from people in bigger houses. That could have been dealt with by tweaking other taxes, but one of the neat things about rates/council tax is that it at least gets something out of well off people who aren't on PAYE and have good accountants.
The point that Westpig raises is also a practical one. I knew quite a few more or less itinerant and student types who opted out quite happily.
Expect to see its return when we have identity cards perhaps.
|
>>but one of the neat things about rates/council tax is
>> that it at least gets something out of well off people who aren't on PAYE
>> and have good accountants.
I think that is too narrow an angle and misses the point of what the tax should be about.
1, There are people who live in council properties who are relatively well off, maybe their parents lived there, then they've inherited it and are now running a good business etc...that is not an unusual situation and with some adult kids thrown in to equation are well and truly using all the local services.
2, I know of someone local who has just moved out of the tiniest housing association small terraced house, yet also has a 35 foot newish Princess motor yacht and runs a rally car and his own business.
3, I for example am now a pensioner and supplement that pension with a small part time job, yet have chosen to buy quite a large property with a large garden in a particularly picturesque spot (i.e. ticks the boxes for the accelerators for enhanced council tax).
4, What about the old biddy that's lived somewhere since the year dot, her and her husband have paid their dues, she's on her own now and struggling a bit, but nevertheless lives in a biggish house.
Why should examples 3 and 4 pay significantly more than examples 1 and 2? Why don't we all pay individually our own share, subject to fallbacks for the less able/well off?
I don't begrudge the bloke with the Princess...good luck to him...and each to their own, it's his freedom of choice, but equally so it's my choice to invest it in the house and I don't see why the local authority should slam me for more.
|
>> and I don't see why the local authority should slam me for more.
>>
...and the bar stewards put me up a band after i'd moved in.
I tried querying it, but backed off when they told me an appeal might end up with me going up two bands as it was a bit borderline....(don't know if I was had over, wasn't worth risking the negative result).
|
>> Why should examples 3 and 4 pay significantly more than examples 1 and 2? Why
>> don't we all pay individually our own share, subject to fallbacks for the less able/well
>> off?
1 and 2 pay income tax based on their income, as do 3 & 4.
It was your choice to move into a high taxed house, no-one forced you to.
|
>> It was your choice to move into a high taxed house, no-one forced you
>> to.
I quite agree. But that's not the point.
The point of council collected taxes is to pay for local services.
If three similar people choose to spend their hard earned cash on:
1, a damned good life style, pub, eating out, holidays, cars, etc
2, an expensive boat and a rally car
3, a big house and big garden in a secluded rural area
Why should 3, be subsidising 1 and 2?
Last edited by: Westpig on Sat 29 Dec 12 at 18:58
|
>> >> It was your choice to move into a high taxed house, no-one forced you
>> >> to.
>>
>> I quite agree. But that's not the point.
>>
>> The point of council collected taxes is to pay for local services.
>>
>> If three similar people choose to spend their hard earned cash on:
>>
>> 1, a damned good life style, pub, eating out, holidays, cars, etc
They paid taxes on all of those purchases, quite a few different ones on the holiday, for using the services and they have to pay taxes to run the car for using the roads i.e. the services, and they pay more for the bigger the car they have
>> 2, an expensive boat and a rally car
The boat attracts mooring fees for using the services the bigger the boat the more those costs are
>> 3, a big house and big garden in a secluded rural area
>>
>> Why should 3, be subsidising 1 and 2?
you are paying, just like they are, on the size of your purchase for using the services
I dont see the anomaly, its merely a different perspective on what you are trying to pay for.
>>
|
>> They paid taxes on all of those purchases, quite a few different ones on the
>> holiday
Yes..and I pay taxes on all my leisure pursuits.
>>
>> The boat attracts mooring fees for using the services the bigger the boat
>> the more those costs are
Yes. To a private company, unless you remove it from the water and put it where you want or have your own mooring, in which case you pay nothing.
Council tax goes to the local authority to pay for services for all...not a private company to enable them to make a profit.
>> you are paying, just like they are, on the size of your purchase
Yes, I've worked that out...my question is why?
Do I use more of the bins service, the library, the road network, just because my house is bigger than the chap down the road?
>> I dont see the anomaly, its merely a different perspective on what you are trying
>> to pay for.
The anomaly is using the size/price of a house to set the local authority tax to pay for local services...presumably using an assumption that the bigger the house the more wealthy the occupant.
Whilst there might well be a degree of accuracy in that, to some extent...it is a very blunt tool, for the reasons I've stated above and a much fairer way would be to have those that use and can afford it, pay....e.g the poll tax...and as Fullchat says below, use Income Tax to sort out the wealthy paying more.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 30 Dec 12 at 13:23
|
Err ... have you checked what council tax bands other properties similar to yours are rated at Piggy?
Our last place (Truro) was rated E, but I thought sod that for a game of soldiers, so I found out what similar properties were rated at using Mouseprice/Zoopla etc., then challenged it with Cornwall Council and ...
it was reduced to band D.
|
>> then challenged it with Cornwall Council and ...
>> it was reduced to band D.
>>
I don't dare.
Next door's is one higher than what we've just moved on to. There aren't any other houses about.
When I spoke, at length on the phone, to a lady in Southampton with the Valuations Office she stated she'd done the valuation based on the fact the house was half built when they did the last survey in 1987 and now it was built and had been lived in for many years, it was due a move up one. I have no idea why it wasn't re-evaluated all those years in between, the recent sale (to us) has triggered this re-think, I suspect the VAO? are re-evaluating the bands every time a house is sold, so that the councils can rake more in in harsh times.
Next door has pluses we don't have and likewise so do we.... I don't want their band.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 30 Dec 12 at 16:44
|
>>I don't dare.
Next door's is one higher than what we've just moved on to. There aren't any other houses about<<
Best to keep schtum then ;)
In the 4.5 years we were at our previous property, we saved about £1000 over that period by going from band E to band D.
I believe a property is only re-evaluated regarding council tax bands when a house is sold, if there has been some major alteration carried out such as an extension.
|
>> >> The boat attracts mooring fees for using the services the bigger the
>> boat
>> >> the more those costs are
>>
>> Yes. To a private company, unless you remove it from the water and put it
>> where you want or have your own mooring, in which case you pay nothing.
>
You ever tried parking your 35 foot princess boat in your small housing association front garden? specially with the rally car already there?
At the end of the day you have a big house in a nice area that you paid over the odds for, like me, and its only fair you pay more for the services. In that respect its just like income tax, I don't see the difference.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 30 Dec 12 at 14:08
|
|
I don't know if council tax works along the same principles as the old rating system, but when I owned a one bedroom maisonette in Ilford I queried why my rates were higher than my mate's three bedroom house in the next road. I was told that it was because maisonettes in that area were more sellable than houses even though they were obviously much cheaper, which seemed stupid and unfair to me
|
>> You ever tried parking your 35 foot princess boat in your small housing association front
>> garden? specially with the rally car already there?
It could be parked at his business premises. Nevertheless the info is irrelevant, it's the principle of it and i'm sure you well understand my point.
For the record, the individual I'm talking about is A, a nice chap..and B, doing what he wishes to do and I fully support that.
I just think he and I should pay the same for our bin services etc.
|
>> >> You ever tried parking your 35 foot princess boat in your small housing association
>> front
>> >> garden? specially with the rally car already there?
>>
>> It could be parked at his business premises. Nevertheless the info is irrelevant, it's the
>> principle of it and i'm sure you well understand my point.
Yes exactly it was irrelevant of you to bring it up, what someone choses to spend their money on has got nothing to do with it.
>>
>> I just think he and I should pay the same for our bin services etc.
You want to even things out? How about you and I live next door to one another in the same type of house. You have kids, I dont. You are going to utilise schools, more bin services, etc etc. I don't. Why should I pay the same as you? How you going rationalise that one? What is a fair way of paying for services?
You are moaning because you are paying more than someone else. As I said, you had the option not to, but you chose to. As did I.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 30 Dec 12 at 17:01
|
>> You are moaning because you are paying more than someone else. As I said, you
>> had the option not to, but you chose to. As did I.
>>
I am moaning because my choice of house purchase dictates the level of tax I have to pay, yet there's a perfectly well set up system (income tax) that can generate tax that relies on a system of what you pay depends on how much you earn.
Why don't they use something like that?
If someone down the road wishes to spend their money on drugs/booze/fags/holidays or even a gert big boat..fine....up to them, but why does the local authority expect more from me for using the same services they do, just because I choose to buy a bigger house?
|
If they're spending, they are paying tax too.
I'd quit while you're ahead on this one. The biggest objection to council tax is that it isn't progressive enough.
In my LA, the difference in council tax between a middling band D and the top band H is from £1437 to £2874, so double. The ratio of the very top to the bottom band is exactly 3, far less I imagine than the ratio of average income of the average occupants, so council tax is still regressive on the whole.
One of the options that would be looked at in any overhaul would be a rate on value, which would presumably leave the average house where it is, but make little houses very cheap and big houses much more expensive.
www.labourland.org/downloads/papers/chapters/6.pdf
|
>> >>but one of the neat things about rates/council tax is
>> >> that it at least gets something out of well off people who aren't on
>> PAYE
>> >> and have good accountants.
>>
>> I think that is too narrow an angle and misses the point of what the
>> tax should be about.
I don't disagree, it's just a point, and one that was often heard as a defence of the rates.
>>I for example am now a pensioner and supplement that pension with a small
>> part time job, yet have chosen to buy quite a large property
Your choice, as you say.
>> 4, What about the old biddy that's lived somewhere since the year dot, she and
>> her husband have paid their dues, she's on her own now and struggling a bit,
>> but nevertheless lives in a biggish house.
She'll get the single occupancy rate, and if she's poor she can sell the house. Choices have to be made.
>> I don't see why the local authority should slam me for more.
Console yourself that capital gains on your main property are not taxable, and you'll probably come out well ahead, so it's a bargain.
I'd agree that the Community Charge was probably the least unfair form of local taxes of the ones we've had, or would have been had their been a lot more compliance.
The tax system as a whole is a real dog's breakfast isn't it?
|
>> The tax system as a whole is a real dog's breakfast isn't it?
>>
Aye.
I'd like it as fair as is humanly possible...and that would not include automatically taxing the rich to hell either...they are the ones that need to generate the income to help supplement the poor.
|
>> And where are we now? You have to register how many people are in your
>> home and pay your council tax for that home band/people or you dont get registered
>> to vote.
I don't understand your point. Your current council tax is dependent on the band rating of your house, that's it. Doesn't matter if you have 10 people living there, or just 1.
Poll tax was an individual tax, (with some correctly having major discounts). So the house with 10 adults in paid more (individually) than the one next door with 1 in.
>>
>> Poll tax seemed fair to me.
Agreed
|
>> >> And where are we now? You have to register how many people are in
>> your
>> >> home and pay your council tax for that home band/people or you dont get
>> registered
>> >> to vote.
>>
>> I don't understand your point. Your current council tax is dependent on the band rating
>> of your house, that's it. Doesn't matter if you have 10 people living there, or
>> just 1.
There's a single person discount, also available if you have certain people in the household.
|
Although there was much I disagreed with, and still do, for the most part, she had a plan and she usually stuck to it.
Not like the current crop who seem to do or say whatever is least inconvenient at the time.
|
>> Although there was much I disagreed with, and still do, for the most part, she
>> had a plan and she usually stuck to it.
That in itself isn't always right. If you're wrong, admit it, change it and move on.
What I really liked about her was her commitment and integrity i.e. willing to do what is right for the country, even if it's unpalatable and even if it risks alienating some voters.
I see her as the Right version of Tony Benn. A conviction politician, willing to follow their beliefs and do what they think is right for the country.
I admire Benn as well, albeit I think he was wrong on a lot of things.
What I find genuinely strange, is the vitriol and unpleasantness that comes from a lot of the Left towards Maggie...why can't they think like I do of Tony Benn? Why can't they see that she did what she thought was best, in line with her beliefs..it's almost as though their dislike of someone/something opposite to their beliefs means they think it shouldn't exist and is automatically to be hated....a bit like modern times with political correctness; perceived racism/sexism/homophobia*..."if you think differently to me, you're awful".
* as opposed to the real stuff, which obviously does exist.
>>
>> Not like the current crop who seem to do or say whatever is least inconvenient
>> at the time.
Not like the current crop who seem to do or say whatever is least likely to lose votes
at the time.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sat 29 Dec 12 at 17:22
|
>> What I find genuinely strange, is the vitriol and unpleasantness that comes from a lot
>> of the Left towards Maggie...why can't they think like I do of Tony Benn? Why
>> can't they see that she did what she thought was best, in line with her
>> beliefs..it's almost as though their dislike of someone/something opposite to their beliefs means they think
Maybe it had something to do with the fact that she was in power for 11 years and made irrevocable changes to our society?
Whether you were left or right you still lost your job when monetarist policy meant your viable and profitable industrial employer suddenly became un-viable/unprofitable for lack of working or investment capital.
Do you really think that if Benn had created a socialist utopia, never mind the compromises required in real life, that those who lost out would not have harboured vitriol and unpleasantness?
How do your former colleagues feel about Mrs May and Tom Winsor?
|
>> Maybe it had something to do with the fact that she was in power for 11 years and made irrevocable changes to our society?
In some cases maybe Bromptonaut. But there was a sort of fixation on the person of Mrs T. She was the first woman PM, she was a bit common like Edward Heath, and she often had a hectoring manner. And by the early eighties there was a sort of far-left dementia abroad in the Labour rank and file.
I see the Falklands as a vivid illustration of all that. Even on the left there was almost certainly an unconscious male chauvinist element at work. 'Thatcher's War', 'Iron Britannia'... they might well have shown a bit more sense if the PM at the time had been a man. But we will never know now. What happened happened, and a lot of people were wrong about it.
|
>> Maybe it had something to do with the fact that she was in power for
>> 11 years and made irrevocable changes to our society?
A bit like Blair then...does he receive the same level of unpleasantness from the Right?
>>
>> Whether you were left or right you still lost your job when monetarist policy meant
>> your viable and profitable industrial employer suddenly became un-viable/unprofitable for lack of working or investment
>> capital.
Can't have been that viable then.
>>
>> Do you really think that if Benn had created a socialist utopia, never mind the
>> compromises required in real life, that those who lost out would not have harboured vitriol
>> and unpleasantness?
Depends if it worked or not.
>> How do your former colleagues feel about Mrs May and Tom Winsor?
Not a great deal and neither do I..but...I can see the bigger picture and understand why it's been done (although I think there's been a degree of naivety in some of it and it'll eventually back fire).
>>
|
>> A bit like Blair then...does he receive the same level of unpleasantness from the Right?
Are we on the same planet? Blair is oft referred to as Bliar. The right press (Mail, Telegraph etc) are quick to jump on anything he does and remind us of his offences in office - and there were many of which Iraq was the greatest. The hate extends to his wife as well; somebody over in the honours thread was very rude about her. At least Denis was only mocked for his alleged gin'n'golf lifestyle.
>> Can't have been that viable then.
Businesses need capital to keep them afloat and to invest. A doctrinaire focus on so called money supply pushes the cost of that capital (interest) through the roof. The same policy pushes the pound to crazy levels on the exchange markets. You can no longer export competitively and at same time cheap imports flood the market. CRASH!!
Even the more enlightened of her own ministers saw that one.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 31 Dec 12 at 10:55
|
>> Are we on the same planet?
In all honesty, no I don't think we are...although in fairness you always argue your point in a polite, respectful fashion...and I appreciate that.
>> Blair is oft referred to as Bliar.
Yes, by the true Left usually...and in particular because they didn't agree with his reasons for going to war.
Many on the Right did agree with some sort of war response, but still think he was dodgy and all the spin demeaned his office.
>> The right
>> press (Mail, Telegraph etc) are quick to jump on anything he does and remind us
>> of his offences in office -
Very true...but not necessarily or usually in the form of hatred.
>> The hate extends to his wife as well;
She earned that herself, because of her unwillingness to accept her husband had been voted in as Prime Minister not her and her place was to support him...not interfere herself.
Her reaction on leaving Downing Street for the last time summed her up. Contrast that with Maggie's tear in her eye.
>> somebody over in the honours thread
>> was very rude about her.
...and beat me to it. But I don't hate Cherie Blair. She's a talented, intelligent lady who has done very well for herself in her career and proven her abilities...and...cannot keep her trap shut..and is unwilling to 'know her place'.
>> Businesses need capital to keep them afloat and to invest.
Of the two parties (Labour and Conservative), which one is traditionally known as the one friendly to business (because they want them to thrive and support the country through their financial success)? We both know the answer to that one.
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 31 Dec 12 at 14:42
|
>> unwilling to 'know her place'.
>>
|
>> >> unwilling to 'know her place'.
See my reply to pda. Move along now, nothing to see here.
|
>>But I don't hate Cherie Blair. She's a talented, intelligent lady who has done very well for herself in her career and proven her abilities...and...cannot keep her trap shut..and is unwilling to 'know her place'.<<
She has also done an awful lot of good work for Womens Charities, so why should she 'know her place'?
What would that place be?
Two steps behind her husband and all other males, while taking avow of silence?
Actually, I wouldn't like her either, I don't think if I met her, but I am capable of recognising the good things she's done and is still doing.
Pat
|
>> unwilling to 'know her place'.
The same as Dennis Thatcher...allow her spouse, the one elected, to do what they were elected to do and not interfere. Dennis was a successful businessman in his own right, but he never tried to usurp his wife.
>>
>> Two steps behind her husband and all other males, while taking avow of silence?
Where on earth do you get that from? I'm surprised you didn't include 'class' in it as well if you're to try to put words in my mouth that do not exist.
>> Actually, I wouldn't like her either, I don't think if I met her, but I
>> am capable of recognising the good things she's done and is still doing.
So am I, which is why I mentioned the positives of her career and her intelligence
|
>> Callaghan actually sent a task force in 1977 when an invasion was threatened and he was of the left.
In fact the task force caused the Argentinians to think again and the threat vanished, as David Owen rather smugly pointed out when they had invaded. There's a lot of truth obviously in the neglect theory. Even so I doubt if the Argentinians really thought Britain didn't care about the Falklands. I am sure the position was made clear, and the large number of people of British extraction living in Argentina has always meant both countries had good intelligence on each other.
The Argentine government of the time, military with little or no mandate other than its own wishes and ambitions, brutally repressive too in Argentina and therefore much hated, had its own reasons for risking a fait accompli. When it began to look as if it was actually going to try, one can hardly doubt that London screamed at Washington to keep order in its own back yard for God's sake. Perhaps Washington mumbled something about doing its best, and then didn't. Looked a bit like that to me. There are always rifts in the US about which alliances should get priority.
|
Going back to the Poll Tax, a major reason for the riots was that many young people still living with mum and dad and only contributing a token rent suddenly found their parents telling them the new tax was an individual thing and they'd have to contribute their own share. I knew several who were horrified at the prospect, mostly those who were long and loud in their criticism of "Tory cuts" and spent their time demanding tax and spend policies. As always, when push came to shove it was other people they expected to pay the tax while they got the benefit of the spend.
They were easy fodder for the left to get onto the streets.
|
I remember the introduction of Poll Tax nearly halved our rates as there were only two of us then. The principle was sound. Money raised through rates went to pay for local services, street lighting, refuse collection, education, roads and so on. Something everyone uses in more or less equal amounts so its fair that everyone pays an equal contribution. A big house gets its dustbins emptied once a week the same as a small house.
If its about wealth then tax income.
|
|
FC, genuine question, were you for it because it halved your bill, or for it in principle?
|
That's a good question. At the time my 'good in principle' attitude justified the reduction in my rates.
Now I have 2 teenagers 2 years short of being able to vote do my principles still hold the same? I think I have to say yes. We would be the bigger user of services so should pay accordingly.
It's a bit like water meters. Before meters the bill was based around the rateable value of the house not around how much water I used or waste created. So a large household paid the same as a single occupancy property. With a meter I pay an appropriate amount for what I use. As a single person that would be a whole lot less. I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's water.
|
I think we're likely to see more, rather than fewer, wealth taxes in the future.
There are winners and losers with everything. Public sector pensioners with inflation protection could be very big winners in the next 10 years, as could those with mortgages.
The losers will be those without debt and living on savings, fixed incomes and pensions with capped increases. The people who were responsible enough to try and pay their way in fact.
As somebody with no borrowings and a retirement prospectively funded by savings, pension fund drawdown (don't even think of annuities at current rates) and a small pension with a 5% RPI cap I'm not sanguine. The sums involved in council tax are trivial in comparison with the inflation risks ahead.
|
The Poll Tax sounded and perhaps was fair in principle. Everybody pays a share and when first mooted that share was less than £100.
When applied in practice it was much more involved. The price per person rose inexorably. For all the talk of 'funding local services' most of those costs are met from central government grant. Governments of either party gerrymander the grant formula to benefit their own. Filling the gaps meant that the poll tax was highly geared; quite small changes in local spend had a disproportional effect on the charge. For a range of reasons £100 became £300-£400.
There were hard cases. People in tied accom whose rates had been met by the employer were personally liable for PT. That alone cost the YHA several dozen committed hostel wardens.
A blind insistence that those on benefits 'pay something' (ie by reducing their income available for other things) meant Councils had spend a lot of money chasing small debts. The lesson has not been learned an the situation will be replicated with the changes to Council Tax Benefits to be introduced from April.
|
>> A blind insistence that those on benefits 'pay something' (ie by reducing their income available
>> for other things) meant Councils had spend a lot of money chasing small debts. The
>> lesson has not been learned an the situation will be replicated with the changes to
>> Council Tax Benefits to be introduced from April.
>>
I'm glad the 'lesson has not been learned'. If someone should take some personal responsibility and owes something to the rest of us, then they should pay..and if to start with the costs of recovery outweigh the sums recovered, then so be it..there's an important principle that some in society find hard to grasp..and I for one am happy for my taxes to be spent ensuring that they do.
|
Essentially we will be paying benefits to people from which they will have to make council tax payments. My sister in law works on behalf of a well known charity with teenage mothers. She has discussed this with a number of her clients and a typical reaction was "I'm not going to pay it. Why should I pay tax?!". She will be astonished if the majority don't quickly go into arrears.
It's supposed to inculcate a sense of responsibility and help them to learn to manage money. It will just provide another opportunity to be feckless and to learn that there is really no sanction. If the idea is that they contribute something then an adjustment should be made to the benefit and the money paid direct.
|
>> It's supposed to inculcate a sense of responsibility and help them to learn to manage
>> money. It will just provide another opportunity to be feckless and to learn that there
>> is really no sanction. If the idea is that they contribute something then an adjustment
>> should be made to the benefit and the money paid direct.
Unfortunately there's no evidence or piloting to prove that 'they' will manage better on monthly payments. What research there is suggests that most manage well on weekly or fortnightly payments but go short for two days at the end.
The new Council Tax Benefit is going to be a mess. Each authority has been given freedom to design it's own system. The money available has been cut by 10% but pensioners will still get the ful whack so what's left for the rest will be a lot less.
The appeals system meanwhile is not to the Social Security Tribunal but to the Valuation Tribunal, a body with no expertise whatever in the area and which is devolved outside of England. In England they'll probably be able to re-muster social security judges to the VT to deal with the cases.
Experience in Wales and Scotland may be more interesting........
|
|
Thanks to Conservative messing around in Wales - they failed to get the regulations through in time for Jan 1st implementation - they had to recall the whole sorry shower back in the Christmas recess to rush them through. No doubt this bunch didn't claim their expenses as it was their own fault...oh yeah....
|
As a pensioner I'm OK with the new council tax benefits!
BUT I still maintain that the poll tax model is a much fairer system.
Last edited by: Roger on Mon 31 Dec 12 at 14:55
|
>> Unfortunately there's no evidence or piloting to prove that 'they' will manage better on monthly
>> payments. What research there is suggests that most manage well on weekly or fortnightly payments
>> but go short for two days at the end.
Something has to give somewhere. The welfare state has morphed into something unintended. There are some families where a 3rd generation are getting used to sitting on their backsides and doing nothing, letting other people go out to work to support them.
That isn't right, it's as simple as that.
It isn't about the disabled, the truly unfortunate, the mentally unwell etc..it's about the workshy and lazy.
If it wasn't for the worldwide financial difficulties we are in, there's no way any Govt would have dared address the welfare state problems..so in that small way, the financial problems will have done us a long term favour.
My neighbour has a home in Spain and spends a couple months a year over there. He tells me that Spain allows someone to be on benefits for a max of 2 years..and..they have to have paid in to get anything out. Explains why there's a queue of people at Sangatte waiting to get in having travelled the whole length of Europe to get to us.
We haven't got the balance right, it needs urgent tweaking. Irritatingly, if someone says what I just have...they usually have the bleeding heart liberal types try to quash their arguement by them suggesting you are against the welfare state or would be happy to see truly needy people out on the streets...which is far, far away from my viewpoint.
I want balance, not an open cheque book.
|
Argentina is itself a 19th century colony, which didn't assume its present form until very late in the century after 50 or so years of complicated civil war. The Spanish and other colonists who occupied what we call Argentina more or less eliminated the indigenous inhabitants.
Argentina's claim to the Falkland islands is specious and fatuous. Mrs Kirchner is foolish to ape her fascist predecessors by parroting their claim.
At the time of the Falklands war I discovered to my astonishment that some people in third-world countries sympathising with the Argentinians in knee-jerk, 'anti-imperialist' fashion believed that the British had massacred the indigenous inhabitants of the islands. There never were any.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 3 Jan 13 at 21:32
|
|
Doesn't stop them trying it on, not militarily though, they're too far down the toilet for that.
|
>> Doesn't stop them trying it on, not militarily though, they're too far down the toilet
>> for that.
>>
And so are we. The Royal Navy has been decimated by cuts since the Falklands war. We may have a few spare soldiers but if Argentina moved in we have no way of getting them there unless we rent some car ferries and no ships or aircraft that can provide air cover or power.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 3 Jan 13 at 22:22
|
>> And so are we. The Royal Navy has been decimated by cuts since the Falklands
>> war. We may have a few spare soldiers but if Argentina moved in we have
>> no way of getting them there unless we rent some car ferries and no ships
>> or aircraft that can provide air cover or power.
>>
Militarily we could have a couple of subs sat down there permanently and nothing could move in/out of any port.
Politically unlikely though.
|
>> Militarily we could have a couple of subs sat down there permanently and nothing could
>> move in/out of any port.
>>
>> Politically unlikely though.
>>
And physically, two submarines on station means you need at least six, Long transit times, refits, maintenance, crew rest, I do not know but I doubt if we have six operational fleet submarines.
For a maritime island nation our navy is becoming a joke, Did you see the recent Gibraltar confrontation? Our little patrol boat v a Spanish destroyer, all we had there.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 3 Jan 13 at 22:38
|
>> And so are we. The Royal Navy has been decimated by cuts since the Falklands
>> war. We may have a few spare soldiers but if Argentina moved in we have
>> no way of getting them there unless we rent some car ferries and no ships
>> or aircraft that can provide air cover or power.
Wont need soldiers. The Argentinians have cut their military just as much as we have (remember at the time of the Falklands war, Argentina was a military led state), they wont be going in to try and take the islands again.
Plus we have a nice shiny new RAF base down there with Eurofighter Typhoons based there.
|
>> Plus we have a nice shiny new RAF base down there with Eurofighter Typhoons based
>> there.
>>
I agree, but all it needs is a surprise few bombs along the runway and the shiny Typhoons are going nowhere.
|
>> I agree, but all it needs is a surprise few bombs along the runway and
>> the shiny Typhoons are going nowhere.
>>
Whereas the Harrier.....old, flawed....but did the job....better than nothing when you think we have no aircraft carrier.
|
>> Whereas the Harrier.....old, flawed....but did the job....better than nothing when you think we have no
>> aircraft carrier.
yeah dunno why they dropped the harrier, didnt save much dosh doing so.
|
>> dunno why they dropped the harrier, didnt save much dosh doing so.
Didn't the US twist the MoD's arm by saying they had a better VTOL, and then buy up the remaining Harriers for a song?
We are supposed to get a new 'large' aircraft carrier in several years' time, but have (it is said) no aircraft to go with it.
My general impression is that everyone including the US is so skint that sabre rattling is all we can expect for some time to come, by everyone. Fingers crossed eh? That's quite a bit better than the real thing.
|
>> Fingers crossed eh?
>> That's quite a bit better than the real thing.
>>
>>
That's how the infamous "10-year Rule" of 1919 worked. It was agreed that trouble might occur, and we might need armed forces, but not within 10 years, so no need to worry.
Next year the rule was reviewed, and re-applied for another 10 years.
And so on to 1939.
|
When i say airbase, you include, air defense radar, misile defense, standing patrols (they have air to air refueling down there) and a Type 45 navy picket air defense on patrol.
Looking at the Argentine airforce, nothing there is going to take anyone by surprise. But if they put the airbase out of action, the Argentine navy cant transport anything their either.
|
>> When i say airbase, you include, air defense radar, misile defense, standing patrols (they have
>> air to air refueling down there) and a Type 45 navy picket air defense on
>> patrol.
Yep there's a lot more kit than 30 years ago. Although the type 45 isn't down there all the time.
>>
>> Looking at the Argentine airforce, nothing there is going to take anyone by surprise. But
>> if they put the airbase out of action, the Argentine navy cant transport anything their
>> either.
>>
They've just had to put up for sale their Mirages and a lot of other kit has been mothballed.
|
>> Yep there's a lot more kit than 30 years ago. Although the type 45 isn't
>> down there all the time.
>>
As I said above about submarines on station, we don't have enough type 45s to keep one there all the time, one on station means you need to allocate four to the task. Wiki says we have 77 ships in commision, 30 of which are patrol boats of about 50 tons, there are many bigger private yachts than that. It also includes four survey vessels and HMS Victory which was cutting edge technology in Nelsons day but not a lot of use today. We do have three assault ships but one of them will be in refit at any given time and seven fleet submarines of which probably three will be operational. No air cover is fatal as we found out in WW2. A battleship and battle cruiser were sunk off Singapore by the Japanese aircraft on the 10 December 1941, and inadequate air cover lost us ships in the last Falklands war.
|
I see the Sun has to stick its nose in.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20907312
|
>> I see the Sun has to stick its nose in.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20907312
>>
and guess what?
Argentinians burn copies of The Sun and the Union Jack as Falkland Islanders send a warning letter to the country's president.
news.sky.com/story/1033203/argentinians-burn-sun-in-row-over-falklands
|
|
I'd agree there's less in days past, but to me the question is are the forces in the FI proportional to the threat? I'd say yes.
|
>> >> Doesn't stop them trying it on, not militarily though, they're too far down the
>> toilet
>> >> for that.
>> >>
>>
>> And so are we.
I'd don't think we are.
We may have a few spare soldiers but if Argentina moved in
That's the thing, it's unlikely there are likely to in the first place, such is the state we might have slipped in capacity, but they've fallen off a cliff. It would be a task beyond them, our defences and their lack of assets. Nothing is impossible, persistant but low level is a good description.
|
As someone sed on the wireless yesterday regarding the proximity of the Falklands to Argentina:
"Chile is close to Argentina too, but that doesn't belong to them either".
:}
|
>> As someone sed on the wireless yesterday regarding the proximity of the Falklands to Argentina:
>>
>>
>> "Chile is close to Argentina too, but that doesn't belong to them either".
>>
>> :}
>>
However, that doesn't stop the Argentinians thinking the Chilean part of Tierra del Fuego should belong to them.
|
|
Why does Argentina belong to Spanish colonists?
|
|
Because they beat up the Portuguese colonists.
|
So nothing to do with self-determination by the original inhabitants?
Are the UN investigating this case of blatant European neo-colonialism?
|
>> self-determination by the original inhabitants?
Massacred by the colonists long ago. The Brazilians (or some of them) are still at it in remote areas.
|
Chile has ongoing problems with the indigenous population, mostly the Mapuche. The rights and wrongs of those problems are not relevant here, but they are significant.
Argentina does not have significant problems with the remnant of its indigenous population.
How can that be? Oh yes, the Argentinians previously killed them all.
And what is the dispute? The Mapuche stated that as they were the indigenous population and the Argentinians (and Chileans) merely colonizing interlopers, then all the land and rights should be passed back to the Mapuche and the opinions of the invaders is not important, relevant or valid.
|
>>However, that doesn't stop the Argentinians thinking the Chilean part of Tierra del Fuego should belong to them.
And the impending war on exactly that subject was why Pinochet supported the UK.
[psssst, A'vic. I was referring to your note although not strictly replying to it, even though I quoted it. Just so's you know. sssshhhhh.]
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 4 Jan 13 at 15:37
|
|
Isn't there a a large population of Welsh speakers somewhere in Argentina? I think the Argentinians have a good territorial claim on Anglesey.
|
>> Isn't there a a large population of Welsh speakers somewhere in Argentina? I think the
>> Argentinians have a good territorial claim on Anglesey.
>>
No, Wales has a claim on Argentina.
|
|
You may have mis-interpreted the people of Anglesey - knowing them they probably believe that they have a claim on the Argentinian mainland - Anglesey is known in Welsh as "The Land of Cando" - they have attitude...
|
|
I was reading a book the other day on the conflict - there was mention of an injured young Argentine conscript by the name of Hughes having an emotional moment when he was being treated by a Welsh speaking Nurse with the UK Forces - their only common language
|
Yeah, a lot of sheepshaggers down there. It must be the climate that appeals - howling gales, horizontal rain and so on.
Non-English speakers with British names are to be found all over the place, not just in former bits of the British empire. Met in 1980 or so a charming Mozambican mulatto - a government official who actually did speak English, but with a Portuguese accent - who was a member of the Waddington family (some of whose grandees print money and make playing cards). He told me that all Waddingtons are related, and that he himself had been invited to one of their family get-togethers in England.
|
>> Isn't there a a large population of Welsh speakers somewhere in Argentina?
Patagonia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonia
|
Everyone can be assured that our shores will be protected and we will have the sea power to protect our interests worldwide.
Privatisation is the answer to all problems.
tinyurl.com/bcc8zg6 (Daily Express)
|
30 year rule - Falklands War - R.P.
