Rock on, Rockall! (it's back)

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't really care anymore who was in the IRA and who wasn't.

Or indeed who was in the parachute regiment or who was not. Time to move on, isn't that not right Francie? Oh wait...

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Or indeed who was in the parachute regiment or who was not. Time to move on, isn't that not right Francie? Oh wait...

My position has always been - justice for everyone or justice for no-one. A 'truth' commission.

What has yours been? Justice for the victims of one side and defend or forget about the rest. You should give Willie Frazer a call.

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

Surely you could argue same point in relation to any organisation??

One movement was unique in using the slogan about "an armalite in one hand and a ballot box in the other hand". I think it fair to say it improved its performance at the ballot box when it gave up the armalite.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

One movement was unique in using the slogan about "an armalite in one hand and a ballot box in the other hand". I think it fair to say it improved its performance at the ballot box when it gave up the armalite.

Meh....shift goalposts all you want....your complaining about overlap in memberz of organisations

Fact remains,you must basically be complaining about virtually every organisation in the state at the time....if your to be consistant

FrancieBrady

The Rockall (the subject of the thread Jan...this one isn't about your obsession either) story seems to have died a death. Did not see any Sunday papers, was there any coverage?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My position has always been - justice for everyone or justice for no-one. A 'truth' commission.

What has yours been? Justice for the victims of one side and defend or forget about the rest.

Indeed, there should be justice for all, but very hard to find justice when certain people do not even admit being in the pIRA, even though other pIRA members say they were. As said before, between 1971 and 1989 there were 203 murders in the Fermanagh and south Tyrone area alone, of which about 178 were carried out by republican paramilitaries. Only 14 convictions followed. So an awful lot of people were not prosecuted. Do you think a truth commission would solve some of those murders, or why has there not being calls for investigations in to those murders?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Indeed, there should be justice for all, but very hard to find justice when certain people do not even admit being in the pIRA, even though other pIRA members say they were. As said before, between 1971 and 1989 there were 203 murders in the Fermanagh and south Tyrone area alone, of which about 178 were carried out by republican paramilitaries. Only 14 convictions followed. So an awful lot of people were not prosecuted. Do you think a truth commission would solve some of those murders, or why has there not being calls for investigations in to those murders?

Open a thread on it Jan.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Open a thread on it Jan.

Well, Republicans could'nt be bothered condemning the 178 murders carried out by republican paramilitaries, out of a total of 203 murders carried out in that area in those decades for example, and you and others do not care who was in the IRA and who wasn't, so not much chance of any progress ever being made in solving those crimes (oh sorry, they were not crimes) now.

Anyway, back to Rockall, any word on if Irish boats are still fishing in that area?

Hamsterchops

According to RTE news, Iceland have now joined the affray!

Apparently Rockall is part of the Icelandic continental shelf.

steddyeddy

Yes Iceland have reaffirmed their claim on it too. It's worth remembering Iceland won the Cod wars against Britain.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0621/1056733-iceland-rockall/

SexBobomb

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes Iceland have reaffirmed their claim on it too. It's worth remembering Iceland won the Cod wars against Britain.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0621/1056733-iceland-rockall/

So they have form ?

FrancieBrady

It would be great to see this get into an international court.

droidman123

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It would be great to see this get into an international court.

Would be interesting,the old bullying tactics of the british is long gone,manners has been put on them.i would love to see how they cope with getting some land by actual legal means.might be a bit confusing for them

janfebmar

droidman123 wrote: »

Would be interesting,the old bullying tactics of the british is long gone,manners has been put on them.i would love to see how they cope with getting some land by actual legal means.might be a bit confusing for them

Might be a bit confusing to you to understand the land is much closer to them than anyone else, they were the first ones to land on it and claim it, and they were the only ones to live on it for any period of time, so why would it not be theirs?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Might be a bit confusing to you to understand the land is much closer to them than anyone else, they were the first ones to land on it and claim it, and they were the only ones to live on it for any period of time, so why would it not be theirs?

You cannot claim an uninhabitable rock;

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

I know you have had a difficult relationship with facts but as you have been told several times...the SAS loon was wasting his time.

RobMc59

janfebmar wrote: »

Might be a bit confusing to you to understand the land is much closer to them than anyone else, they were the first ones to land on it and claim it, and they were the only ones to live on it for any period of time, so why would it not be theirs?

I wonder if these Viking nations claiming jurisdiction be as conciliatory as the UK has been over rockall?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot claim an uninhabitable rock;

Like some islands off our Irish coast?
Some British people did live on Rockall for some time so that means it was habitable.

Kivaro

janfebmar wrote: »

Like some islands off our Irish coast?
Some British people did live on Rockall for some time so that means it was habitable.

Oh right. This is the Island before the Brits arrived on this bit of paradise:





And this is the rock after they arrived:




Will you go away, will ya.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

janfebmar wrote: »

Like some islands off our Irish coast?
Some British people did live on Rockall for some time so that means it was habitable.

This odd transferred nationalism is odd.

Dr Turk Turkelton

janfebmar wrote: »

Like some islands off our Irish coast?
Some British people did live on Rockall for some time so that means it was habitable.

Are you sure people lived on Rockall?

droidman123

janfebmar wrote: »

Might be a bit confusing to you to understand the land is much closer to them than anyone else, they were the first ones to land on it and claim it, and they were the only ones to live on it for any period of time, so why would it not be theirs?

That has nothing to do with my post.i was saying how interesting it would be to see how the british cope with accuiring land through legal means as opposed to stealing land forcibly before manners was put on them.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Like some islands off our Irish coast?
Some British people did live on Rockall for some time so that means it was habitable.

Clinging on for dear life in the delusion you are 'claiming it for queen or country' is not 'living on it'.
Could a sentence be any simpler in it's meaning?

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

janfebmar

Kivaro wrote: »

Oh right. This is the Island before the Brits arrived on this bit of paradise:





And this is the rock after they arrived:




.

Both of the rocks above sustained human habitation / humans lived there for at least a few months. Both islands are probably the same height above sea level....The photo of Rockwall is taken from further away.

TheValeyard

We gotta keep an eye on those Icelandic now!


https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/now-iceland-sails-into-row-over-ownership-of-rockalls-waters-38242740.html

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Both of the rocks above sustained human habitation / humans lived there for at least a few months. Both islands are probably the same height above sea level....The photo of Rockwall is taken from further away.

Do you understand the meaning of the word 'sustain'?

Because neither of those can sustain human life.

odyssey06

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot claim an uninhabitable rock;

(1) You can if it is in your sovereign seas
(2) You can't use it to claim an economic zone or continental shelf - and the Scots are not
(3) You can use it to claim narrow territorial waters - and the Scots are

The only real question of ambiguity is whether Rockall is in UK seas already or if Iceland have a claim. Ireland do not.

FrancieBrady

odyssey06 wrote: »

(1) You can if it is in your sovereign seas
(2) You can't use it to claim an economic zone or continental shelf - and the Scots are not
(3) You can use it to claim narrow territorial waters - and the Scots are

The only real question of ambiguity is whether Rockall is in UK seas already or if Iceland have a claim. Ireland do not.

Apologies...I wasn't referring to claiming sovereignty there. I was referring to claiming rights to it.

Sovereignty of Rockall is disputed by a few. The UK are no longer a law onto themselves in such matters.

_blaaz

odyssey06 wrote: »

The only real question of ambiguity is whether Rockall is in UK seas already or if Iceland have a claim. Ireland do not.

The UK ammeded their position on its fisheries limits to be based on st kilda rather than rockall in 1997??


By brief search on google suggests denmark may have a claim.also

odyssey06

_blaaz wrote: »

The UK ammeded their position on its fisheries limits to be based on st kilda rather than rockall in 1997??
By brief search on google suggests denmark may have a claim.also

Through the Faroes, which is technically Danish territory though seems to have a lot of autonomy.

BarryD2

odyssey06 wrote: »

The only real question of ambiguity is whether Rockall is in UK seas already or if Iceland have a claim. Ireland do not.

I dunno, Rockall is quite separated from the continental shelf. As far I can see from a geographical POV, neither the UK nor Ireland have any logical claim.