The Armando LaGrande Column says:
Stanging or seating, or even standing on your head, is the chief minister of Gibraltar 'queen'? That is the question being asked after people were formally asked to stand up when Peter Caruana arrived at the parade for the Queen's Birthday.
In theory it has nothing to do with Caruana, in fact the same would apply to any other chief minister.
That cleared, the question that needs clearing is whether the Chief Minister is the head of state of Gibraltar, the representative of the Queen?
If the Governor is no longer the representative of the Queen, the Foreign Office should issue a formal statement announcing that henceforth the Chief Minister represents the Queen.
If that's not the case, they should also issue a formal statement saying that the Chief Minister is the Chief Minister.
The invitation people received stated that it was "a parade to celebrate the birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II."
The official programme said it was "a parade to celebrate the 85th birthday of Her Majesty the Queen."
But there in the official programme, in black upon white, it ordered that when the Chief Minister arrives "please stand until the Chief Minister has taken his seat."
That's a funny thing to order the public to do, because at the equivalent parade in London those invited were not instructed to stand up and stay standing until the Prime Minister took his seat.
That is the point, and one would imagine that a Prime Minister is of greater importance than a Chief Minister in the protocol list.
So, who gave instructions for those attending the parade to be instructed to stand and when not to stand as regards the Chief Minister?
This is the same Chief Minister who said the other day that the decolonisation of Gibraltar "has already occurred."
If that is so, will there be a Royal proclamation announcing it?
In the meantime, is the Governor still the representative of the Queen or is it now the Chief Minister, whoever may be occupying that post at any time?
Those are the questions. Where are the answers...?
Friday, 17 June 2011
Thursday, 16 June 2011
Health and safety must be robust and proactive
Over the year's local workplace safety standards have largely been undermined by poor health and safety investigation policies, this includes enforcement procedures as a result of an acute lack of manpower and resources. In fact the latter reasons have mostly been responsible for criticisms and concerns from politicians, unions, courts and the public!
Recently since the tank explosion at the port, health and safety has had the proverbial spot-light over it. This incident as most of us know resulted in the injury of two men, who it seems were doing some welding on the tank that blew up, one of these workers received serious and life threatening injuries. Also 12 passengers aboard the royal caribbean's independence of the seas in port at the time also received injuries.
Significantly however the health and safety aspect of this serious matter did not stop with the two workmen and the injured passengers on the cruise ship. As the whole of Gibraltar I'm sure, are grateful that this serious incident was contained. Some excellent and combined work from our two local fire brigades saw too this. Firemen were able to contain the fire, not withstanding the fact however that they were grossly unresourced, this an issue which by all intends and purposes, is another subject of debate!
Hot work may have caused explosion
Coordinated investigations continue into the cause of the explosion at the sullage plant. Numerous public statements (away from the investigation) have already attributed the cause of the incident to the wielding or hotwork activity on the tanks.
As may well have been expected, a lot of public comment and experts, have questioned the important health and safety implications connected to the main possible cause theory, including the likelihood of some health and safety infringements. If all this is true: 'How could health and safety procedures have been so indiscriminately ignored?
When talking about health and safety I think of those important guiding principles or ideals and rules that always top this agenda. For instance, the argument that the 'government or any top-down organisation or any boss should lead the workforce by example' these must be important principles! The government for instance, will never succeed to implement something effectively if it does not prove that it actually believes in what it is preaching. To make matters worse, the local culture does not help to improve the situation: prevention is not always better than cure in certain aspects of local life. Just take the situation with 'underage drinking, alcohol, drugs and tobacco abuse'
Just consider for a moment the amount of construction sites and buildings that have sprouted up all over the place in the past 10 or 12 years, one has to ask questions like 'how many companies, employers including the government have actually appeared in court on health and safety related offences' judging by the many views expressed on this matter 'not that many'. Remarkable really, when you consider Gibraltar's construction revolution over recent years, it is where one would have expected a much more pro-active and robust approach to health and safety, but this has not been the case!
It's not as if we have not had any serious fatal incidents, we have! Workman have been killed! And yet health and safety cases in court have mainly been initiated as a result of a bad accident or death in a workplace, mostly caused by h&s infringements. Of course, none of this helped by very poor health and safety inspection policies on those many construction sites. Even though it's not my intention to generalise, but its part of reality that there are managers, or rather, employers in Gibraltar who unfortunately still consider health and safety as a cost. And if protective equipment or procedures is a requirement in law, they will go for the cheapest or take dodgy shortcuts. I'm sure many members of the public have seen examples of this, particular if they have gone round some of the construction sites with an observant eye.
Court urged government to strengthen its health and safety inspectorate
It wasn't that long ago jurors at an inquest into a fatal accident during the construction of waterport terraces spoke out, this when a worker suffered a fatal accident when he fell from a partly finished second floor balcony after a makeshift guardrail made from recycled timber gave way. Jurors than urged the government to strengthen its health and safety inspectorate. The recommendation followed evidence from the government's principal factories inspector, who told the inquest that his department lacked adequate resources. The inquest in fact heard that there were only two inspectors to enforce health and safety regulations in all workplaces in Gibraltar; however my information is that the situation is not any better!
But health and safety in the community is not all about work and construction sites, it covers a much larger and similarly important area than just the working environment! Health & safety in the community includes many areas; we unfortunately don't see much evidence that health and safety extends to the everyday life of everyone in society!
Take the environment, emission, smells noise and traffic congestion, a situation in which as a community, we are all daily affected by all these toxic and environmentally dangerous and unhealthy risks that affects all of us, everyday of our lives. These are serious 'quality of life issues'
Noise a real pollutant
As a resident, employee or visitor to Gibraltar you are expected to tolerate most noises, within reason and without much complaint. Noise becomes unreasonable however when it invades your space to the exclusion of everything else. We do get them, here are some examples: excessive noise from leisure establishments, especially during the night; noise generated by the never-ending construction activity; excessive noise discharged by the souped-up car or m/cycle exhausts, underlined by the bass from the super wattage system; the neighbours uncontrollable urge to share his phobic noise rage; and seasonal noise, especially in the summer months. I am sure that most of us at one time or another found that noise was unbearable but had to be tolerated due to lack of unified redress!
One of the biggest culprits of noise pollution is the generating station on waterport rd way, people living in this area are treated 24/7 to some horrendous sounds emanating from this government controlled installation, I know because I live in the area! We are told nothing can be done; basically no one listens, not because they are deaf as a result of all the noise from these machines, but because they just don't care!
Gibraltar lacks cohesive legislation and regulatory framework on noise
Gibraltar lacks a cohesive legislation and regulatory framework governing noise, there's very few laws that came's down on all those many everyday noise nuisances.
In fact we are way behind most of europe in this respect, not surprising really, when you consider that one of the biggest round the clock noise offenders is the government itself!
Gibraltar in this respect needs a drastic change of mindset. Noise is not just a nuisance; those exposed to excessive noise will suffer from hearing impairment, the gravity of which depends on the noise intensity. This analogues to the hazard of smoking 20 years ago, when smokers believed that tobacco was the safest habit and all else was hogwash!
Although if our health and safety-come-environmental authority is the official body for the investigation and abatement of noise, and if as we are told, they are short on staff and resources (a similar story to the factory inspectors) restricting them of enforcing anything; than what chance is there for peace and quite in Gibraltar!
Smells, emissions and traffic fumes
In so far as smells and emissions are concerned, well, these environmental issues and many others have been comprehensively covered by the ESG who have done great work for years in making the public aware regarding all these important environmental issues.
Although at the same time the ESG has also kept up pressure on the government to gets its finger out to remedy many of the problems affecting the community's quality of life.
By any indicator you choose, health and safety enforcement has for some time been in decline in Gibraltar. Many think it has never really been effectively implemented.
Think about it, if employers are aware that health and safety laws have fallen into disrepute, like in not being respected and there being no credible threat of it actually being enforced, why would they respect it themselves? And why would they take seriously the demands of workers and safety reps to follow it anyway, it's a win-win situation for them and a dangerous situation for employees and ultimately society.
Accidents will always happen. It only takes a blink of an eye, a slip of a finger or a misplaced step. However the chances of something happening are much greater if ineffective and inefficient procedures/policies are in place. The failure to enforce pertinent health and safety legislation greatly increases the chances of accidents and incidents occurring, as we saw in the port the other week.
Weak and ineffective health and safety practices make workplaces vulnerable, that's a fact! Although in many other ways, it will also have a direct influence on community life in Gibraltar, which in turn threatens our quality of life, now, and in the future!
Leo Olivero
Recently since the tank explosion at the port, health and safety has had the proverbial spot-light over it. This incident as most of us know resulted in the injury of two men, who it seems were doing some welding on the tank that blew up, one of these workers received serious and life threatening injuries. Also 12 passengers aboard the royal caribbean's independence of the seas in port at the time also received injuries.
Significantly however the health and safety aspect of this serious matter did not stop with the two workmen and the injured passengers on the cruise ship. As the whole of Gibraltar I'm sure, are grateful that this serious incident was contained. Some excellent and combined work from our two local fire brigades saw too this. Firemen were able to contain the fire, not withstanding the fact however that they were grossly unresourced, this an issue which by all intends and purposes, is another subject of debate!
Hot work may have caused explosion
Coordinated investigations continue into the cause of the explosion at the sullage plant. Numerous public statements (away from the investigation) have already attributed the cause of the incident to the wielding or hotwork activity on the tanks.
As may well have been expected, a lot of public comment and experts, have questioned the important health and safety implications connected to the main possible cause theory, including the likelihood of some health and safety infringements. If all this is true: 'How could health and safety procedures have been so indiscriminately ignored?
When talking about health and safety I think of those important guiding principles or ideals and rules that always top this agenda. For instance, the argument that the 'government or any top-down organisation or any boss should lead the workforce by example' these must be important principles! The government for instance, will never succeed to implement something effectively if it does not prove that it actually believes in what it is preaching. To make matters worse, the local culture does not help to improve the situation: prevention is not always better than cure in certain aspects of local life. Just take the situation with 'underage drinking, alcohol, drugs and tobacco abuse'
Just consider for a moment the amount of construction sites and buildings that have sprouted up all over the place in the past 10 or 12 years, one has to ask questions like 'how many companies, employers including the government have actually appeared in court on health and safety related offences' judging by the many views expressed on this matter 'not that many'. Remarkable really, when you consider Gibraltar's construction revolution over recent years, it is where one would have expected a much more pro-active and robust approach to health and safety, but this has not been the case!
It's not as if we have not had any serious fatal incidents, we have! Workman have been killed! And yet health and safety cases in court have mainly been initiated as a result of a bad accident or death in a workplace, mostly caused by h&s infringements. Of course, none of this helped by very poor health and safety inspection policies on those many construction sites. Even though it's not my intention to generalise, but its part of reality that there are managers, or rather, employers in Gibraltar who unfortunately still consider health and safety as a cost. And if protective equipment or procedures is a requirement in law, they will go for the cheapest or take dodgy shortcuts. I'm sure many members of the public have seen examples of this, particular if they have gone round some of the construction sites with an observant eye.
Court urged government to strengthen its health and safety inspectorate
It wasn't that long ago jurors at an inquest into a fatal accident during the construction of waterport terraces spoke out, this when a worker suffered a fatal accident when he fell from a partly finished second floor balcony after a makeshift guardrail made from recycled timber gave way. Jurors than urged the government to strengthen its health and safety inspectorate. The recommendation followed evidence from the government's principal factories inspector, who told the inquest that his department lacked adequate resources. The inquest in fact heard that there were only two inspectors to enforce health and safety regulations in all workplaces in Gibraltar; however my information is that the situation is not any better!
But health and safety in the community is not all about work and construction sites, it covers a much larger and similarly important area than just the working environment! Health & safety in the community includes many areas; we unfortunately don't see much evidence that health and safety extends to the everyday life of everyone in society!
Take the environment, emission, smells noise and traffic congestion, a situation in which as a community, we are all daily affected by all these toxic and environmentally dangerous and unhealthy risks that affects all of us, everyday of our lives. These are serious 'quality of life issues'
Noise a real pollutant
As a resident, employee or visitor to Gibraltar you are expected to tolerate most noises, within reason and without much complaint. Noise becomes unreasonable however when it invades your space to the exclusion of everything else. We do get them, here are some examples: excessive noise from leisure establishments, especially during the night; noise generated by the never-ending construction activity; excessive noise discharged by the souped-up car or m/cycle exhausts, underlined by the bass from the super wattage system; the neighbours uncontrollable urge to share his phobic noise rage; and seasonal noise, especially in the summer months. I am sure that most of us at one time or another found that noise was unbearable but had to be tolerated due to lack of unified redress!
One of the biggest culprits of noise pollution is the generating station on waterport rd way, people living in this area are treated 24/7 to some horrendous sounds emanating from this government controlled installation, I know because I live in the area! We are told nothing can be done; basically no one listens, not because they are deaf as a result of all the noise from these machines, but because they just don't care!
Gibraltar lacks cohesive legislation and regulatory framework on noise
Gibraltar lacks a cohesive legislation and regulatory framework governing noise, there's very few laws that came's down on all those many everyday noise nuisances.
In fact we are way behind most of europe in this respect, not surprising really, when you consider that one of the biggest round the clock noise offenders is the government itself!
Gibraltar in this respect needs a drastic change of mindset. Noise is not just a nuisance; those exposed to excessive noise will suffer from hearing impairment, the gravity of which depends on the noise intensity. This analogues to the hazard of smoking 20 years ago, when smokers believed that tobacco was the safest habit and all else was hogwash!
Although if our health and safety-come-environmental authority is the official body for the investigation and abatement of noise, and if as we are told, they are short on staff and resources (a similar story to the factory inspectors) restricting them of enforcing anything; than what chance is there for peace and quite in Gibraltar!
Smells, emissions and traffic fumes
In so far as smells and emissions are concerned, well, these environmental issues and many others have been comprehensively covered by the ESG who have done great work for years in making the public aware regarding all these important environmental issues.
Although at the same time the ESG has also kept up pressure on the government to gets its finger out to remedy many of the problems affecting the community's quality of life.
By any indicator you choose, health and safety enforcement has for some time been in decline in Gibraltar. Many think it has never really been effectively implemented.
Think about it, if employers are aware that health and safety laws have fallen into disrepute, like in not being respected and there being no credible threat of it actually being enforced, why would they respect it themselves? And why would they take seriously the demands of workers and safety reps to follow it anyway, it's a win-win situation for them and a dangerous situation for employees and ultimately society.
Accidents will always happen. It only takes a blink of an eye, a slip of a finger or a misplaced step. However the chances of something happening are much greater if ineffective and inefficient procedures/policies are in place. The failure to enforce pertinent health and safety legislation greatly increases the chances of accidents and incidents occurring, as we saw in the port the other week.
Weak and ineffective health and safety practices make workplaces vulnerable, that's a fact! Although in many other ways, it will also have a direct influence on community life in Gibraltar, which in turn threatens our quality of life, now, and in the future!
Leo Olivero
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
Gibraltar's British territorial waters - What the Govt says it will not permit is already happening!
The Opposition say they note that the General Court of the European Court has ruled inadmissible on procedural grounds the cases filed by the Gibraltar and the United Kingdom Governments following the designation by Spain of Gibraltar’s waters as if they were Spanish. This rejection on procedural grounds appears to be based on the fact that the Gibraltar Government asked only for part of the Spanish designation to be struck off instead of all of it.
The Opposition has not been a party to the case and has not been briefed in any way. Therefore our comments are based exclusively on the information which has already been put into the public domain by others.
It will be recalled that in 2006, on a proposal from the United Kingdom, two Sites of Community Importance (SIC) in Gibraltar were designated by the EU for the purposes of environmental directives. One of these, called “Southern Waters of Gibraltar”, was within British Gibraltar Territorial Waters. In 2008, on a Spanish proposal, the EU designated a new Site of Community Importance (SCI) called “Estrecho Oriental”. This new site overlapped with and included the one already designated by the United Kingdom as well as including international waters and Spanish waters.
The Gibraltar Government filed a court case which sought to remove British Gibraltar Territorial waters from the Spanish designation, with the intention that this would remain in place as amended. This procedure has not been allowed by the Court. It is logical to assume, although this is not clear, that the Government were advised to proceed in this manner as opposed to seeking that the entire Spanish designation should be struck off.
However, at the time when the case was filed, a second precautionary action was also initiated in the Supreme Court of Gibraltar. The Government said at the time that “This second action is precautionary in a procedural sense. We fully expect our direct action in the EU Court of First Instance to prosper procedurally.”
The Opposition adds: It is regrettable that the case has not prospered procedurally and that now an appeal needs to be filed.
The Opposition goes on to say that they agree with the Government that British Gibraltar Territorial Waters should be subject to the exclusive application of Gibraltar law. However, the point is that ever since the designation, the Spanish authorities have effectively behaved more aggressively as if the waters in question belonged to them and have been seeking to apply Spanish law in an area of territorial sea which is not Spanish.
There have been a whole series of serious incidents which have taken place as Spain has tried to enforce its purported jurisdiction in Gibraltar waters. The fisheries protection vessel, the Corvette “Tarifa” started this new phase when it lowered a RHIB which proceeded to inspect fishing boats in British waters. It refused to leave when asked to do so by the Royal Navy. There have been numerous recorded incidents of the Guardia Civil stopping pleasure boats and asking owners for their documentation, sometimes within meters of our shoreline. They removed a suspect from RGP custody in the Bay and prevented the arrest of others in the area of the lighthouse a few weeks ago. The Spanish Navy recently ordered a vessel at anchor on the east side to leave those waters because they were Spanish.
Therefore when the Gibraltar Government says that it will not “permit British Gibraltar Territorial Waters to be treated, administered or governed for EU or any other purposes other than as waters of exclusive British Sovereignty,” they have to bear in mind that, in this context, what they have said they will not permit has been happening already. This is why the Opposition has always taken the view that the additional resources for the RGP and other agencies, which the Government itself identified were needed in 2009, should have been made available a long time ago.
The Opposition has not been a party to the case and has not been briefed in any way. Therefore our comments are based exclusively on the information which has already been put into the public domain by others.
It will be recalled that in 2006, on a proposal from the United Kingdom, two Sites of Community Importance (SIC) in Gibraltar were designated by the EU for the purposes of environmental directives. One of these, called “Southern Waters of Gibraltar”, was within British Gibraltar Territorial Waters. In 2008, on a Spanish proposal, the EU designated a new Site of Community Importance (SCI) called “Estrecho Oriental”. This new site overlapped with and included the one already designated by the United Kingdom as well as including international waters and Spanish waters.
The Gibraltar Government filed a court case which sought to remove British Gibraltar Territorial waters from the Spanish designation, with the intention that this would remain in place as amended. This procedure has not been allowed by the Court. It is logical to assume, although this is not clear, that the Government were advised to proceed in this manner as opposed to seeking that the entire Spanish designation should be struck off.
However, at the time when the case was filed, a second precautionary action was also initiated in the Supreme Court of Gibraltar. The Government said at the time that “This second action is precautionary in a procedural sense. We fully expect our direct action in the EU Court of First Instance to prosper procedurally.”
The Opposition adds: It is regrettable that the case has not prospered procedurally and that now an appeal needs to be filed.
The Opposition goes on to say that they agree with the Government that British Gibraltar Territorial Waters should be subject to the exclusive application of Gibraltar law. However, the point is that ever since the designation, the Spanish authorities have effectively behaved more aggressively as if the waters in question belonged to them and have been seeking to apply Spanish law in an area of territorial sea which is not Spanish.
There have been a whole series of serious incidents which have taken place as Spain has tried to enforce its purported jurisdiction in Gibraltar waters. The fisheries protection vessel, the Corvette “Tarifa” started this new phase when it lowered a RHIB which proceeded to inspect fishing boats in British waters. It refused to leave when asked to do so by the Royal Navy. There have been numerous recorded incidents of the Guardia Civil stopping pleasure boats and asking owners for their documentation, sometimes within meters of our shoreline. They removed a suspect from RGP custody in the Bay and prevented the arrest of others in the area of the lighthouse a few weeks ago. The Spanish Navy recently ordered a vessel at anchor on the east side to leave those waters because they were Spanish.
Therefore when the Gibraltar Government says that it will not “permit British Gibraltar Territorial Waters to be treated, administered or governed for EU or any other purposes other than as waters of exclusive British Sovereignty,” they have to bear in mind that, in this context, what they have said they will not permit has been happening already. This is why the Opposition has always taken the view that the additional resources for the RGP and other agencies, which the Government itself identified were needed in 2009, should have been made available a long time ago.
Spanish accuse Caruana of being ‘an environmental terrorist’
A Spanish political party has gone as far as accusing the chief minister Peter Caruana of being 'an environmental terrorist,' which goes to show to what extent there are those on the other side prepared to attack Gibraltar's leaders.
In this case, it is the 'Partido Andalucista' which has made the accusation, because in their view Caruana goes about behaving in the 'Bay of Algeciras' without adhering to EU directives in matters of bunkering, of shipping and of maritime security.
The PA party has in fact raised a formal complaint before their courts against Caruana for allegedly putting at risk his own people and the whole of the bay by refusing help over the explosion and fire in the port of Gibraltar last week.
After Caruana made a statement about resources to handle such a fire, others in Spain have quickly highlighted that Gibraltar is admitting that it does not have the resources to handle incidents like the one that happened in the port.
Among other things, Caruana said that there is no prospect of the sullage plant being allowed to restart operations.
He also said: "We indicated to Spain almost immediately once the incident happened that we would call on their resources as soon as they were required. That is exactly what we did."
What next? That is the question being asked. It is one thing to have good relations and it is something else to fall into the trap of converting cooperation into Gibraltar losing control in its own operations.
Certainly, if we want to be a leading port we must ensure that we have the necessary equipment, materials and resources to handle any eventuality that may arise.
In this case, it is the 'Partido Andalucista' which has made the accusation, because in their view Caruana goes about behaving in the 'Bay of Algeciras' without adhering to EU directives in matters of bunkering, of shipping and of maritime security.
The PA party has in fact raised a formal complaint before their courts against Caruana for allegedly putting at risk his own people and the whole of the bay by refusing help over the explosion and fire in the port of Gibraltar last week.
After Caruana made a statement about resources to handle such a fire, others in Spain have quickly highlighted that Gibraltar is admitting that it does not have the resources to handle incidents like the one that happened in the port.
Among other things, Caruana said that there is no prospect of the sullage plant being allowed to restart operations.
He also said: "We indicated to Spain almost immediately once the incident happened that we would call on their resources as soon as they were required. That is exactly what we did."
What next? That is the question being asked. It is one thing to have good relations and it is something else to fall into the trap of converting cooperation into Gibraltar losing control in its own operations.
Certainly, if we want to be a leading port we must ensure that we have the necessary equipment, materials and resources to handle any eventuality that may arise.
ESG calls on Chief Minister to make necessary move to remove waste plant
The ESG very much welcomes the Chief Minister’s comments last week on Radio Gibraltar and GBC on the viability of the waste oil treatment plant in Gibraltar. This follows our belief that the oil industry is incompatible with the tourism industry in Gibraltar due to our very small size and our inability to have these located at safe distances away from residential areas/schools/hospital/ships/aircraft/etc
The ESG adds: Gibraltar is physically too small to safely locate oil processing plants or oil storage tanks or other oil related industries at a safe distance from residential areas as shown by the plant explosion where we were very lucky with wind direction and the fact that only one of the tanks caught fire. The explosive and flammable nature of the products handled by this industry is incompatible with residential areas and they cannot be physically situated far enough from these to guarantee safety in the event of an accident.
The consequences of an accident in these industries are far reaching and long lasting with regards to oil pollution and their effects on marine ecosystems and human populations as well as tourism and other leisure industries. The effects of this incident are being felt in Gibraltar as well as the entire bay and the Spanish coastline even though the actual fire was luckily contained within the installation.
The general public should also be aware that even when operating normally this oil processing plant creates huge problems for local residents. We were informed by the Environmental Agency approximately a week before the explosion that the waste treatment plant was in fact the source of the noxious fumes that had recently and regularly been affecting many residents in Gibraltar - dependent on wind conditions. Evidently fumes have not been detected or reported to the ESG since the explosion which confirms our conviction that the quality of life for Gibraltar residents was being adversely affected even by the normal operation of this installation.
Given the very real risks to lives and to our environment and to our quality of life in Gibraltar we totally agree with the Chief Minister's statement that serious consideration has to be given to operate waste collection as is done in other ports: that is purely collection and storage as per EU directives and then shipment on to treatment elsewhere where it can be safely processed. We trust that he will make the necessary moves to allow the decommissioning and dismantling of the waste treatment plant and the clean up of its site as soon as possible, their statement ends.
The ESG adds: Gibraltar is physically too small to safely locate oil processing plants or oil storage tanks or other oil related industries at a safe distance from residential areas as shown by the plant explosion where we were very lucky with wind direction and the fact that only one of the tanks caught fire. The explosive and flammable nature of the products handled by this industry is incompatible with residential areas and they cannot be physically situated far enough from these to guarantee safety in the event of an accident.
The consequences of an accident in these industries are far reaching and long lasting with regards to oil pollution and their effects on marine ecosystems and human populations as well as tourism and other leisure industries. The effects of this incident are being felt in Gibraltar as well as the entire bay and the Spanish coastline even though the actual fire was luckily contained within the installation.
The general public should also be aware that even when operating normally this oil processing plant creates huge problems for local residents. We were informed by the Environmental Agency approximately a week before the explosion that the waste treatment plant was in fact the source of the noxious fumes that had recently and regularly been affecting many residents in Gibraltar - dependent on wind conditions. Evidently fumes have not been detected or reported to the ESG since the explosion which confirms our conviction that the quality of life for Gibraltar residents was being adversely affected even by the normal operation of this installation.
Given the very real risks to lives and to our environment and to our quality of life in Gibraltar we totally agree with the Chief Minister's statement that serious consideration has to be given to operate waste collection as is done in other ports: that is purely collection and storage as per EU directives and then shipment on to treatment elsewhere where it can be safely processed. We trust that he will make the necessary moves to allow the decommissioning and dismantling of the waste treatment plant and the clean up of its site as soon as possible, their statement ends.
Friday, 3 June 2011
Opposition calls for 'full independent investigation' by an external agency
The Opposition considers that while it is important that lessons are learnt from the fire at the Port earlier this week there must also be a full investigation carried out by an external agency into its causes and the consequences that flow from it.
In a statement, Shadow port minister Dr Joseph Garcia says that the emergency services did a very good job in handling the incident. "However, there are a number of questions which have not been answered and which need to be looked into in order to assess not only why it happened and how it was dealt with but whether it should have happened in the first place. The policies of the Government in relation to the Port and the resources and equipment made available to it and to the emergency services should also be assessed."
LACK OF RESOURCES
The GSLP/Liberal statement adds: The obvious point in terms of resources is the lack of heavy duty fire-fighting capacity from the sea through a specialist vessel. There was a time when Gibraltar would lend assistance to nearby towns in Spain when there were incidents of this nature. The situation now is the reverse and the causes for this need to be examined in some detail. There have been a number of serious maritime/port accidents in our territorial waters in the past and it has taken too long to enforce the recommendations made by the experts who examined the incidents reported on them.
"In addition to this," the statement adds,"there have now been comments made by experts in the field of emergency preparedness and response coordination which have been critical of the emergency management plan. There have also been suggestions made that the City Fire Brigade had very limited resources in order to be able to handle this kind of incident. Experts have said that the Fire Brigade does not have large volume pumping capacity, portable remotely controlled ground water/foam monitors or the ability to use aerial ladders as water towers to mount a substantial foam attack on the top of the tank.
SAFETY POINTS
The Opposition goes on to say that the impression has been given that the kind of foam which was used to tackle the fire was not widely stocked in Gibraltar and it has been confirmed that this had to be rushed through the frontier after the fire had already broken out. This alone is clearly not acceptable from a safety point of view and the lack of stock of this foam does raise serious questions. Indeed, people are rightly wondering what is the point of all these committees and all these plans if then something as basic as foam is then found to be missing from the equation.
Shadow Minister with responsibility for the Port Dr Garcia commented: “Our first thoughts are with the worker who was seriously injured in these horrific events and with his family. In the aftermath of this incident, there are many serious questions which need an answer. The emergency services, the fire brigade, the police and the port staff made us all proud on the day. However, it is obvious that issues of resources need to be examined and questions of Government policy need to be assessed. This is best done through an external totally independent inquiry. Any possible under-resourcing of the emergency services has the potential to put at risk their own lives and those of the community as a whole.”
In a statement, Shadow port minister Dr Joseph Garcia says that the emergency services did a very good job in handling the incident. "However, there are a number of questions which have not been answered and which need to be looked into in order to assess not only why it happened and how it was dealt with but whether it should have happened in the first place. The policies of the Government in relation to the Port and the resources and equipment made available to it and to the emergency services should also be assessed."
LACK OF RESOURCES
The GSLP/Liberal statement adds: The obvious point in terms of resources is the lack of heavy duty fire-fighting capacity from the sea through a specialist vessel. There was a time when Gibraltar would lend assistance to nearby towns in Spain when there were incidents of this nature. The situation now is the reverse and the causes for this need to be examined in some detail. There have been a number of serious maritime/port accidents in our territorial waters in the past and it has taken too long to enforce the recommendations made by the experts who examined the incidents reported on them.
"In addition to this," the statement adds,"there have now been comments made by experts in the field of emergency preparedness and response coordination which have been critical of the emergency management plan. There have also been suggestions made that the City Fire Brigade had very limited resources in order to be able to handle this kind of incident. Experts have said that the Fire Brigade does not have large volume pumping capacity, portable remotely controlled ground water/foam monitors or the ability to use aerial ladders as water towers to mount a substantial foam attack on the top of the tank.
SAFETY POINTS
The Opposition goes on to say that the impression has been given that the kind of foam which was used to tackle the fire was not widely stocked in Gibraltar and it has been confirmed that this had to be rushed through the frontier after the fire had already broken out. This alone is clearly not acceptable from a safety point of view and the lack of stock of this foam does raise serious questions. Indeed, people are rightly wondering what is the point of all these committees and all these plans if then something as basic as foam is then found to be missing from the equation.
Shadow Minister with responsibility for the Port Dr Garcia commented: “Our first thoughts are with the worker who was seriously injured in these horrific events and with his family. In the aftermath of this incident, there are many serious questions which need an answer. The emergency services, the fire brigade, the police and the port staff made us all proud on the day. However, it is obvious that issues of resources need to be examined and questions of Government policy need to be assessed. This is best done through an external totally independent inquiry. Any possible under-resourcing of the emergency services has the potential to put at risk their own lives and those of the community as a whole.”
Gibraltar blamed in Spain for oil spill
Gibraltar is being blamed in Spain for an oil spill affecting the beaches of Algeciras. They say that the spill is from the tanks that went up in flames in Gibraltar port and that 6 kilometres of beach are already affected.
The Junta, the Andalusian regional government, say they are consider claiming damages from the Gibraltar government, while a claim is also being sent to the company that owns the sullage plant.
While nothing was being said in Gibraltar, the Spanish were saying that their foreign ministry was asking Britain if the appropriate measures were taken in Gibraltar to combat any damage to the environment.The Algeciras municipality said that they had put in a claim in the courts against Shell as they may be the owners of the tanks.
Meanwhile, fishermen in Algeciras say they are being affected by the oil spill.
The Gibraltar port has said that 4 or 5 tonnes of residues escaped to the sea.
The Junta, the Andalusian regional government, say they are consider claiming damages from the Gibraltar government, while a claim is also being sent to the company that owns the sullage plant.
While nothing was being said in Gibraltar, the Spanish were saying that their foreign ministry was asking Britain if the appropriate measures were taken in Gibraltar to combat any damage to the environment.The Algeciras municipality said that they had put in a claim in the courts against Shell as they may be the owners of the tanks.
Meanwhile, fishermen in Algeciras say they are being affected by the oil spill.
The Gibraltar port has said that 4 or 5 tonnes of residues escaped to the sea.
Thursday, 2 June 2011
Investigation must be made public
The very serious incident on Tuesday where a sullage tank exploded at the end of the port area causing concern not only in the port itself, but all over Gibraltar, will be an incident that will not be easily forgotten by many people.
First of all we must all be grateful that the incident did not develop into something much more serious where innocent lives could have been lost and with cases of serious injury. In this respect I also trust the workmen who were injured have a speedy recovery.
Congratulations are certainly in order for the tremendous work carried by the essential services in what was a difficult and hazardous operation, this including the brave act of valour we are told by a young RGP officer who deserves all the recognition pertaining to his act of bravery.
Everyone wants to know exactly what happened. And rightly so. This is only natural, especially after the area is made safe and agencies have been stood down. This is where we are now after Tuesday's tank explosion. The fact that the RGP are now leading an official investigation into the possible causes of this incident has heightened the public’s desire to know every aspect concerning this accident.
QUESTIONS
People will obviously ask questions, make their own assumptions and probably hazard a guess as to why, what and how the whole of Gibraltar was put on full alert, even small children had that worried and silent look on their innocent faces, this alone was a measure of the depth of community anxiety that most of us experienced.
For this reason any investigation conducted into the causes of this major incident must be made public. And if for whatever reason the authorities are not comfortable or do not think that the on-going Police Investigation is the appropriate instrument to share with the general public, then there should also be running in parallel with the police inquiry a comprehensive Health and Safety Investigation. **b** Any Health and Safety Investigation should be able to determine:
• What happened.
• How it happened?
• Should it have happened?
• And what important health and safety standards were violated if any?
Even the design, operation and maintenance of these tanks would come under their competency including the emergency response to this incident.
It would be insane to think that the public who could easily have been put in some catastrophic and immediate danger because of the close proximity of thousands of homes to where the incident occurred would not want to know every aspect leading to the incident itself.
It is not about finding scapegoats, faults or totting up political brownie points, it’s what every democratic society expects, the truth to be told in a clear, open, unambiguous and unbiased manner. Too often this government in particular treats official information as their property, rather than something which they hold and maintain on behalf of the public.
As someone said: ‘Information is the oxygen of democracy. If people do not know what is happening in their society, if the actions of those who rule them are hidden, then they cannot take a meaningful part in the affairs of that society. But information is not just a necessity for people – it is an essential part of good government. Bad government needs secrecy to survive'.
One the basis that the public has “a right to know” and that it is in the public interest for information to be made available, surely the public has to be assured that the area where they live and bring up their children is a safe place to live.
That is why an investigation must be made public.
First of all we must all be grateful that the incident did not develop into something much more serious where innocent lives could have been lost and with cases of serious injury. In this respect I also trust the workmen who were injured have a speedy recovery.
Congratulations are certainly in order for the tremendous work carried by the essential services in what was a difficult and hazardous operation, this including the brave act of valour we are told by a young RGP officer who deserves all the recognition pertaining to his act of bravery.
Everyone wants to know exactly what happened. And rightly so. This is only natural, especially after the area is made safe and agencies have been stood down. This is where we are now after Tuesday's tank explosion. The fact that the RGP are now leading an official investigation into the possible causes of this incident has heightened the public’s desire to know every aspect concerning this accident.
QUESTIONS
People will obviously ask questions, make their own assumptions and probably hazard a guess as to why, what and how the whole of Gibraltar was put on full alert, even small children had that worried and silent look on their innocent faces, this alone was a measure of the depth of community anxiety that most of us experienced.
For this reason any investigation conducted into the causes of this major incident must be made public. And if for whatever reason the authorities are not comfortable or do not think that the on-going Police Investigation is the appropriate instrument to share with the general public, then there should also be running in parallel with the police inquiry a comprehensive Health and Safety Investigation. **b** Any Health and Safety Investigation should be able to determine:
• What happened.
• How it happened?
• Should it have happened?
• And what important health and safety standards were violated if any?
Even the design, operation and maintenance of these tanks would come under their competency including the emergency response to this incident.
It would be insane to think that the public who could easily have been put in some catastrophic and immediate danger because of the close proximity of thousands of homes to where the incident occurred would not want to know every aspect leading to the incident itself.
It is not about finding scapegoats, faults or totting up political brownie points, it’s what every democratic society expects, the truth to be told in a clear, open, unambiguous and unbiased manner. Too often this government in particular treats official information as their property, rather than something which they hold and maintain on behalf of the public.
As someone said: ‘Information is the oxygen of democracy. If people do not know what is happening in their society, if the actions of those who rule them are hidden, then they cannot take a meaningful part in the affairs of that society. But information is not just a necessity for people – it is an essential part of good government. Bad government needs secrecy to survive'.
One the basis that the public has “a right to know” and that it is in the public interest for information to be made available, surely the public has to be assured that the area where they live and bring up their children is a safe place to live.
That is why an investigation must be made public.
‘Territorial waters’ case thrown out by European Court
The General Court of the European Court has ruled both the Gibraltar Government’s and the UK Government’s “waters cases” inadmissible on procedural grounds, and without an oral hearing or a consideration of the merits of the cases.
The Gibraltar Government’s European legal team have advised the Government that the ruling is highly appellable and the Government have therefore authorised them to draw up and submit an appeal to the European Court of Justice.
Chief Minister, Peter Caruana said: “Our case sought to protect Gibraltar from the adverse consequences to British Sovereignty and exclusive Gibraltar jurisdiction of the British Gibraltar Territorial Waters.
"For that reason, the Gibraltar Government considers it necessary and desirable to appeal the ruling that the Gibraltar Government’s case is inadmissible, and hopes that the UK will do the same in respect of its case."
With the spectre of Spain gaining a foothold on Gibraltar's British territorial waters, the Government has found it necesary to warn that it will defend the waters as British.
Mr Caruana said: "There are absolutely no circumstances in which the Gibraltar Government will permit British Gibraltar Territorial Waters to be treated, administered or governed for EU or any other purposes other than as waters of exclusive British Sovereignty, under the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the Gibraltar Government and Gibraltar Authorities and subject to the exclusive application of Gibraltar laws”.
The Gibraltar Government’s European legal team have advised the Government that the ruling is highly appellable and the Government have therefore authorised them to draw up and submit an appeal to the European Court of Justice.
Chief Minister, Peter Caruana said: “Our case sought to protect Gibraltar from the adverse consequences to British Sovereignty and exclusive Gibraltar jurisdiction of the British Gibraltar Territorial Waters.
"For that reason, the Gibraltar Government considers it necessary and desirable to appeal the ruling that the Gibraltar Government’s case is inadmissible, and hopes that the UK will do the same in respect of its case."
With the spectre of Spain gaining a foothold on Gibraltar's British territorial waters, the Government has found it necesary to warn that it will defend the waters as British.
Mr Caruana said: "There are absolutely no circumstances in which the Gibraltar Government will permit British Gibraltar Territorial Waters to be treated, administered or governed for EU or any other purposes other than as waters of exclusive British Sovereignty, under the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the Gibraltar Government and Gibraltar Authorities and subject to the exclusive application of Gibraltar laws”.
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
Talking Point: Do we want to carry on being leaders, or will we continue to go downhill?
Talking Point:
In Gibraltar we tend to think we are the best in the world in a number of areas, but when an incident takes place, like the explosion and fire in the port, it must make us wonder if it is all an illusion.
How amateurish is our port?
It has long been argued that Spaniards and other non-residents can have easy access to the port, but if you are a local resident the barriers go up and security rules.
If you are a local and arrive with a fishing rod you can be turned away; but if you are a non-local and claim entry to undertake some work or other you are allowed in. That is what people say - is it the case?
Whether it is or not, what about the defensive line that because we are a small community of 30,000 we cannot be better equipped. But we have always been a community of 30,000, and in the past we have been able to meet all eventualities without problem. Why not now?
Why must we now become increasingly more dependent on the goodwill of our neighbours, the ones who want to swallow us up? In the past they would rely on Gibraltar to provide a helping hand. Are we going backwards and not forward?
It can be argued that the MOD were a bigger slice of our economy years ago, and hence their facilities in Gibraltar were greater.
But what kind of an excuse is that? If we want 'devolution', and we get it, surely it is our duty to get ourselves prepared to fend more by ourselves.
If we want our port not to lose its reputation, is it not our obligation to equip it in a manner that we can continue to provide first class services?
Did we have a water tug of adequate size in the days of the MOD? I don't know, but if we did, why don't we invest in having tugs that will allow us meet our obligations, such as when there is an accident like the one on Tuesday? Instead, we allow millions to go down the drain, such as in the Theatre Royal and the new air terminal!
This raises the question if we do have our priorities right. The sooner we realise this, and adopt corrective measures, the sooner that Gibraltar can begin to be what it used to be in yesteryears.
The alternative is that we will continue to go downhill, that we will lose our standing in the world, that our hard-earned reputation will continue to erode - and that we will become not the leaders in this part of the world, but the opposite.
Is that the way we want to go?
In Gibraltar we tend to think we are the best in the world in a number of areas, but when an incident takes place, like the explosion and fire in the port, it must make us wonder if it is all an illusion.
How amateurish is our port?
It has long been argued that Spaniards and other non-residents can have easy access to the port, but if you are a local resident the barriers go up and security rules.
If you are a local and arrive with a fishing rod you can be turned away; but if you are a non-local and claim entry to undertake some work or other you are allowed in. That is what people say - is it the case?
Whether it is or not, what about the defensive line that because we are a small community of 30,000 we cannot be better equipped. But we have always been a community of 30,000, and in the past we have been able to meet all eventualities without problem. Why not now?
Why must we now become increasingly more dependent on the goodwill of our neighbours, the ones who want to swallow us up? In the past they would rely on Gibraltar to provide a helping hand. Are we going backwards and not forward?
It can be argued that the MOD were a bigger slice of our economy years ago, and hence their facilities in Gibraltar were greater.
But what kind of an excuse is that? If we want 'devolution', and we get it, surely it is our duty to get ourselves prepared to fend more by ourselves.
If we want our port not to lose its reputation, is it not our obligation to equip it in a manner that we can continue to provide first class services?
Did we have a water tug of adequate size in the days of the MOD? I don't know, but if we did, why don't we invest in having tugs that will allow us meet our obligations, such as when there is an accident like the one on Tuesday? Instead, we allow millions to go down the drain, such as in the Theatre Royal and the new air terminal!
This raises the question if we do have our priorities right. The sooner we realise this, and adopt corrective measures, the sooner that Gibraltar can begin to be what it used to be in yesteryears.
The alternative is that we will continue to go downhill, that we will lose our standing in the world, that our hard-earned reputation will continue to erode - and that we will become not the leaders in this part of the world, but the opposite.
Is that the way we want to go?
Tuesday, 31 May 2011
Big Brother is watching YOU!
It has finally been recognised by the government that there is a serious problem in Gibraltar with anti-social behaviour - something that has long been highlighted in this paper, only to fall on deaf ears.
Now, the crisis is considered such that CCTV cameras are to be installed in the city centre and outlying areas. And this is only the beginning of CCTV cameras spreading all over, which will raise questions about the invasion of privacy.
Gibraltar is a small place - surely there are other ways of countering the spread of anti-social behaviour? Or are the relevant authorities telling us that they have failed and that the only recourse they can think of is to start installing CCTV cameras?
In much bigger communities, where CCTV has been installed, the problems for their need have not been fully resolved. Will the same happen in Gibraltar?
The point being made elsewhere is that, while CCTV technology is becoming more sophisticated, regulation and safeguards have not kept apace.
CONVERSATIONS PICKED UP
Innovations include cameras that are combined with databases using 'facial recognition technology' to scan and automatically identify people's faces in crowds and cameras with microphones attached to pick up the conversations, as well as the images, of those being watched.
CCTV images can be a valuable tool in crime detection and they have been used effectively in a number of high profile cases over the past few decades. CCTV is however not a silver bullet, says Liberty Human Rights organisation in the UK. Often CCTV images are not sufficiently good quality to be used in criminal courts and it is relatively easy for someone to evade CCTV if they want to. Some police forces admit that they will not use CCTV footage because of the time and costs involved.
Similarly, its effectiveness as a crime deterrent is far from proven. Britain's crime rates are comparable with countries with very few cameras and Home Office funded research has concluded that the impact of CCTV on crime prevention is not significant.
Questions are being asked why the money being spent on CCTV could not be spent on other crime prevention and detection measures.
INTRUSION INTO PRIVACY
The main concern being expressed in Britain is that CCTV is dangerously unregulated. There is no binding legislation governing where CCTV cameras can be placed or who can operate them. And data protection legislation governing how long the images can be kept and accessed, has failed to keep up with technological changes. Without detailed legislative regulation there is even greater potential for CCTV to be misused and abused and potential for unjustified intrusions into privacy.
The large-scale expansion of CCTV in recent years also poses a threat to our way of life. We are however unlikely to wake up one morning with the feeling that we are suddenly under much more surveillance than the day before. This is because surveillance apparatus is assembled in a piecemeal way and often under the radar. Too much surveillance can fundamentally alter the relationship between the individual and the State and the experience of widespread visual surveillance may well have a chilling effect on free speech and activity.
In Gibraltar we are being told that care has been taken to ensure that private dwelling houses have been blanked from the scope of any cameras in order to ensure there is no invasion of privacy. But misuse can happen, as happened in Merseyside were a woman in her bathroom was spied upon even though the camera was not meant to film inside her home.
The use of cameras, the storage of films, are matters which can lead to abuse.
The government is aware of the important civil rights issues that arise with the use of CCTV.
This is not a matter that can be rushed through. The government cannot speak of 'the benefits that the introduction of CCTV brings to bear on the detection of crime and as a deterrence of criminal conduct' - because such matters are not tried and tested in this community.
Besides, once cameras spread all over the place, in public places, will there not be a desire by those concerned to increase their numbers?
As we said at the beginning, this paper has long published concern about anti-social behaviour, yet nothing was done about it in a manner that could bring greater results. The authorities concerned have been denying the undeniable. Now, when the problem has escalated to new heights they can only think of introducing CCTV - what could be a threat to civil liberties and an intrusion to privacy.
Now, the crisis is considered such that CCTV cameras are to be installed in the city centre and outlying areas. And this is only the beginning of CCTV cameras spreading all over, which will raise questions about the invasion of privacy.
Gibraltar is a small place - surely there are other ways of countering the spread of anti-social behaviour? Or are the relevant authorities telling us that they have failed and that the only recourse they can think of is to start installing CCTV cameras?
In much bigger communities, where CCTV has been installed, the problems for their need have not been fully resolved. Will the same happen in Gibraltar?
The point being made elsewhere is that, while CCTV technology is becoming more sophisticated, regulation and safeguards have not kept apace.
CONVERSATIONS PICKED UP
Innovations include cameras that are combined with databases using 'facial recognition technology' to scan and automatically identify people's faces in crowds and cameras with microphones attached to pick up the conversations, as well as the images, of those being watched.
CCTV images can be a valuable tool in crime detection and they have been used effectively in a number of high profile cases over the past few decades. CCTV is however not a silver bullet, says Liberty Human Rights organisation in the UK. Often CCTV images are not sufficiently good quality to be used in criminal courts and it is relatively easy for someone to evade CCTV if they want to. Some police forces admit that they will not use CCTV footage because of the time and costs involved.
Similarly, its effectiveness as a crime deterrent is far from proven. Britain's crime rates are comparable with countries with very few cameras and Home Office funded research has concluded that the impact of CCTV on crime prevention is not significant.
Questions are being asked why the money being spent on CCTV could not be spent on other crime prevention and detection measures.
INTRUSION INTO PRIVACY
The main concern being expressed in Britain is that CCTV is dangerously unregulated. There is no binding legislation governing where CCTV cameras can be placed or who can operate them. And data protection legislation governing how long the images can be kept and accessed, has failed to keep up with technological changes. Without detailed legislative regulation there is even greater potential for CCTV to be misused and abused and potential for unjustified intrusions into privacy.
The large-scale expansion of CCTV in recent years also poses a threat to our way of life. We are however unlikely to wake up one morning with the feeling that we are suddenly under much more surveillance than the day before. This is because surveillance apparatus is assembled in a piecemeal way and often under the radar. Too much surveillance can fundamentally alter the relationship between the individual and the State and the experience of widespread visual surveillance may well have a chilling effect on free speech and activity.
In Gibraltar we are being told that care has been taken to ensure that private dwelling houses have been blanked from the scope of any cameras in order to ensure there is no invasion of privacy. But misuse can happen, as happened in Merseyside were a woman in her bathroom was spied upon even though the camera was not meant to film inside her home.
The use of cameras, the storage of films, are matters which can lead to abuse.
The government is aware of the important civil rights issues that arise with the use of CCTV.
This is not a matter that can be rushed through. The government cannot speak of 'the benefits that the introduction of CCTV brings to bear on the detection of crime and as a deterrence of criminal conduct' - because such matters are not tried and tested in this community.
Besides, once cameras spread all over the place, in public places, will there not be a desire by those concerned to increase their numbers?
As we said at the beginning, this paper has long published concern about anti-social behaviour, yet nothing was done about it in a manner that could bring greater results. The authorities concerned have been denying the undeniable. Now, when the problem has escalated to new heights they can only think of introducing CCTV - what could be a threat to civil liberties and an intrusion to privacy.
Thursday, 26 May 2011
Names named adds fuel to who might stand for election with the Alliance
An inkling of who are supporting and who might stand for election with the GSLP/Liberal alliance emerged last night during a GSLP party political broadcast.
Leader Fabian Picardo, whose broadcast it was, said: "You will see that I am joined in this broadcast by members of the party who are committed to work to see a GSLP/Liberal administration elected."
Then, 9 supporters came on screen and each had a brief say.
One of them was Dr Norbert Borge who said: "I cannot believe in politicians who would endorse or tolerate an Andorra type situation for Gibraltar. My choice for the future is the GSLP."
Another was trade unionist and retired head teacher Joe Cortes who said: "I really do believe that with the GSLP we will be in safe hands."
In recent days there have been rumours spreading fast naming Dr Borge and Mr Cortes as possible candidates in the alliance line-up for the general election due later this year.
Others who made an apperance in the broadcast included Marilou Guerrero, former chairperson of the Federation of Small Business who said that 'a strong team of committed individuals led by Fabian can deliver the change that Gibraltar needs.'
Others who also chose to come out in public supporting the alliance were retired teacher Clifford Santos, student Julian Benyunes, former manager Gibraltar airport and taxi driver Albert Garcia, retired teacher Lionel Perez, banker Albert Borrell and retired Gibraltar regiment officer Wilfred Jurado.
Said Picardo: "That is the strength of the GSLP: our committed and growing membership from all sectors of our society and all walks of life who believe, like I do, that the future of our community is best assured by a GSLP Liberal government."
Those named above cannot all be candidates even if they wanted to, as it would appear that the alliance has three vacancies!
RESTANDING
As far as is known, all the present elected members will be standing again for election.
The GSLP have the following 4 elected members: Fabian Picardo, Joe Bossano, Gilbert Licudi and Charles Bruzon.
The Liberals have 3 elected members: Joseph Garcia, Steven Linares and Neil Costa.
The seven make up the present opposition.
At an election, each voter has up to 10 votes, so the alliance would need another 3 candidates to make the ten who would stand.
But the naming of the above supporters in last night's broadcast is the clearest hint yet as to who their additional candidates might be.
THE GSD SCENE
Meanwhile, there have been reports in the past about the likely changes at the GSD. A report in PANORAMA some time ago quoted GSD circles suggesting that up to 5 changes were possible in the governing party.
Some names have been mentioned since then, but nothing more concrete has developed.
At one point it was felt that Peter Caruana would call it a day, and indeed he so indicated to the Financial Times, but such thinking is no longer the case.
Caruana is on record as saying that, if he left politics, he would want to make as sure as prcatically possible that he would leave a team behind that could take on from him and win an election.
There have been question marks for some time now if the current deputy Joe Holliday will continue, the same thinking applying of late to Danny Feetham.
As regards the PDP, they have been taking the line that they have a full slate to contest the next election.
Robert Vasquez, who had wanted to put together a Coalition for Reform, suddemnly decided he would not be standing, as first reported by us.
JOE GARCIA
Leader Fabian Picardo, whose broadcast it was, said: "You will see that I am joined in this broadcast by members of the party who are committed to work to see a GSLP/Liberal administration elected."
Then, 9 supporters came on screen and each had a brief say.
One of them was Dr Norbert Borge who said: "I cannot believe in politicians who would endorse or tolerate an Andorra type situation for Gibraltar. My choice for the future is the GSLP."
Another was trade unionist and retired head teacher Joe Cortes who said: "I really do believe that with the GSLP we will be in safe hands."
In recent days there have been rumours spreading fast naming Dr Borge and Mr Cortes as possible candidates in the alliance line-up for the general election due later this year.
Others who made an apperance in the broadcast included Marilou Guerrero, former chairperson of the Federation of Small Business who said that 'a strong team of committed individuals led by Fabian can deliver the change that Gibraltar needs.'
Others who also chose to come out in public supporting the alliance were retired teacher Clifford Santos, student Julian Benyunes, former manager Gibraltar airport and taxi driver Albert Garcia, retired teacher Lionel Perez, banker Albert Borrell and retired Gibraltar regiment officer Wilfred Jurado.
Said Picardo: "That is the strength of the GSLP: our committed and growing membership from all sectors of our society and all walks of life who believe, like I do, that the future of our community is best assured by a GSLP Liberal government."
Those named above cannot all be candidates even if they wanted to, as it would appear that the alliance has three vacancies!
RESTANDING
As far as is known, all the present elected members will be standing again for election.
The GSLP have the following 4 elected members: Fabian Picardo, Joe Bossano, Gilbert Licudi and Charles Bruzon.
The Liberals have 3 elected members: Joseph Garcia, Steven Linares and Neil Costa.
The seven make up the present opposition.
At an election, each voter has up to 10 votes, so the alliance would need another 3 candidates to make the ten who would stand.
But the naming of the above supporters in last night's broadcast is the clearest hint yet as to who their additional candidates might be.
THE GSD SCENE
Meanwhile, there have been reports in the past about the likely changes at the GSD. A report in PANORAMA some time ago quoted GSD circles suggesting that up to 5 changes were possible in the governing party.
Some names have been mentioned since then, but nothing more concrete has developed.
At one point it was felt that Peter Caruana would call it a day, and indeed he so indicated to the Financial Times, but such thinking is no longer the case.
Caruana is on record as saying that, if he left politics, he would want to make as sure as prcatically possible that he would leave a team behind that could take on from him and win an election.
There have been question marks for some time now if the current deputy Joe Holliday will continue, the same thinking applying of late to Danny Feetham.
As regards the PDP, they have been taking the line that they have a full slate to contest the next election.
Robert Vasquez, who had wanted to put together a Coalition for Reform, suddemnly decided he would not be standing, as first reported by us.
JOE GARCIA
GBC becoming a King-size broadcasting monopoly: Does he believe in monopolies?
The PDP, which is a long established party, is complaining about what they see as the unfairness of GBC. It is now their turn, others in different walks of life have had reason to be critical of this highly subsidised station.
The problem with GBC stems from the fact that it is a broadcasting monopoly, thus they are inclined to do as they please because they are not subject to local competition.
Monopolies are not a good thing, and freedom-loving people everywhere will fight for their removal.
If the GBC monopoly was done away with, it would not be difficult to discern the freshness that would emerge.
Over the years, the station has become something like a government department. They lack commercial flair, that 'extra' that makes them more acceptable to all.
A government department is a government department, and a broadcasting station should be a broadcasting station.
It is surprising that someone who had a job at Sky, which broke so many conventions and which fought for freedom and diversity, should have become another GBC clone.
Allan King, now the GBC 'chief executive officer', is supportive of the old GBC line. Yet, he himself was super-critical of GBC before he was given the job he now occupies.
So, who does one believe, the Allan King of today or the Allan King of yesterday?
And what does he mean when he says: "GBC's news coverage is based - and will continue to be based - on news value. When an election is called, which is not the case to date, every party will be given fair and impartial coverage."
Is he saying that every party will be given fair and impartial coverage when an election is called.
What happens before and after an election - is he sayng that every party will not be given fair and impartial coverage?
Ask the PDP.
The problem with GBC stems from the fact that it is a broadcasting monopoly, thus they are inclined to do as they please because they are not subject to local competition.
Monopolies are not a good thing, and freedom-loving people everywhere will fight for their removal.
If the GBC monopoly was done away with, it would not be difficult to discern the freshness that would emerge.
Over the years, the station has become something like a government department. They lack commercial flair, that 'extra' that makes them more acceptable to all.
A government department is a government department, and a broadcasting station should be a broadcasting station.
It is surprising that someone who had a job at Sky, which broke so many conventions and which fought for freedom and diversity, should have become another GBC clone.
Allan King, now the GBC 'chief executive officer', is supportive of the old GBC line. Yet, he himself was super-critical of GBC before he was given the job he now occupies.
So, who does one believe, the Allan King of today or the Allan King of yesterday?
And what does he mean when he says: "GBC's news coverage is based - and will continue to be based - on news value. When an election is called, which is not the case to date, every party will be given fair and impartial coverage."
Is he saying that every party will be given fair and impartial coverage when an election is called.
What happens before and after an election - is he sayng that every party will not be given fair and impartial coverage?
Ask the PDP.
Wednesday, 25 May 2011
GBC accused of ‘unfairness’ in not giving all parties an even playing field
GBC has refused a request from the PDP that it should give PDP Leader Keith Azopardi the same opportunity it gave the GSLP Leader, Fabian Picardo, to explain the party's plans ahead of this year's general election, says PDP spokesperson Gigi Sene.
A couple of weeks ago, GBC screened a special one hour Viewpoint programme with Mr Picardo on which he was allowed to appear unchallenged and explain the GSLP's ideas for the next election. This was in addition to the already extensive coverage of the change of leadership in the GSLP both as a news item and with an extended interview to the new leader. The PDP add that they have no problem with Mr Picardo getting all this air time as long as all parties are given an equal opportunity to explain their views in this clearly intensive pre-eleotoral period.
The party insists that this Viewpoint with Fabian Picardo gave him a unique opportunity to put across his ideas and answer questions both from the interviewer and the callers in a way that has never been afforded to the PDP leader even on the launch of the party in 2006. "Equal coverage after the election is called will never repair the inequality of coverage in these few months just ahead of an election," they insist.
GBC has now decided that it will not give the PDP leader a similar opportunity.
The PDP says it is disappointed by this decision by GBC which is after all a public broadcaster and is supposed to act fairly. It organised an unprecedented exclusive programme with Mr Picardo which had nothing to do with the coverage of the leadership change which was over and above it. This means that in effect GBC is preventing the PDP from explaining its views to the people of Gibraltar.
It calls for GBC to reconsider its decision. If it does not then the whole of Gibraltar should be aware that GBC have decided that only the GSLP should be given this exclusive coverage in the run-up to the election. "The unfairness of such a decision is obvious," says the party.
A couple of weeks ago, GBC screened a special one hour Viewpoint programme with Mr Picardo on which he was allowed to appear unchallenged and explain the GSLP's ideas for the next election. This was in addition to the already extensive coverage of the change of leadership in the GSLP both as a news item and with an extended interview to the new leader. The PDP add that they have no problem with Mr Picardo getting all this air time as long as all parties are given an equal opportunity to explain their views in this clearly intensive pre-eleotoral period.
The party insists that this Viewpoint with Fabian Picardo gave him a unique opportunity to put across his ideas and answer questions both from the interviewer and the callers in a way that has never been afforded to the PDP leader even on the launch of the party in 2006. "Equal coverage after the election is called will never repair the inequality of coverage in these few months just ahead of an election," they insist.
GBC has now decided that it will not give the PDP leader a similar opportunity.
The PDP says it is disappointed by this decision by GBC which is after all a public broadcaster and is supposed to act fairly. It organised an unprecedented exclusive programme with Mr Picardo which had nothing to do with the coverage of the leadership change which was over and above it. This means that in effect GBC is preventing the PDP from explaining its views to the people of Gibraltar.
It calls for GBC to reconsider its decision. If it does not then the whole of Gibraltar should be aware that GBC have decided that only the GSLP should be given this exclusive coverage in the run-up to the election. "The unfairness of such a decision is obvious," says the party.
Concern in Gib that ‘hostile and aggressive’ PP likely to win Spanish general election
The overall victory for the Partido Popular (PP) in Sunday’s municipal elections in Spain, in number of votes, number of seats won and in percentage terms suggests that the party is poised to become the next Spanish Government whenever the general election takes place.
This has created considerable concern locally given that the PP has traditionally displayed a markedly hostile and aggressive stance towards Gibraltar and its people, says the GSLP/Liberal Opposition.
The results are interesting at a local and at a national level. The PP won with 38% of the vote (8.47 million) compared to 28% (6.27 million) obtained by the ruling PSOE. There was an outright victory in Algeciras for Jose Ignacio Landaluce, while the Mayor of La Linea Alejandro Sanchez received the most votes but fell just short of an overall majority.
The Opposition adds: "It is obvious that neither Mr Landaluce nor Mr Sanchez have proved to be friends of Gibraltar. The former has not wasted any time in raising anti-Gibraltar issues in the Spanish Parliament in Madrid during his time there as an MP. There can be little doubt that his wave of constant attacks on almost every conceivable issue will continue now that he has moved to a different job just across the Bay.
"It is not known at this stage what the municipal elections will mean for Mr Sanchez. It will be recalled that on taking office he declared that he wanted good relations with Gibraltar and came here to shake the Chief Minister’s hand. This spirit of friendship did not last very long. He will be best remembered as the Mayor who formulated plans to place a toll in the vicinity of the frontier with Gibraltar and even as the person who held office when a storm drain emitting sewage was diverted from a marina on the Spanish side into the Western Beach basin.
"At a national level, the Partido Popular have made it very clear that they intend to cherry-pick different parts of the Cordoba agreement that are not in line with their policy on Gibraltar. They have never felt bound by anything that was signed by the PSOE to which they were not a party. Indeed, PP spokesmen have also expressed reservations in the past at the very structure of the trilateral forum itself. The fact that they could form the next Government of Spain in a few months time, if the local election results are anything to go by, is something that will make many people extremely nervous given their past pronouncements on Gibraltar."
This has created considerable concern locally given that the PP has traditionally displayed a markedly hostile and aggressive stance towards Gibraltar and its people, says the GSLP/Liberal Opposition.
The results are interesting at a local and at a national level. The PP won with 38% of the vote (8.47 million) compared to 28% (6.27 million) obtained by the ruling PSOE. There was an outright victory in Algeciras for Jose Ignacio Landaluce, while the Mayor of La Linea Alejandro Sanchez received the most votes but fell just short of an overall majority.
The Opposition adds: "It is obvious that neither Mr Landaluce nor Mr Sanchez have proved to be friends of Gibraltar. The former has not wasted any time in raising anti-Gibraltar issues in the Spanish Parliament in Madrid during his time there as an MP. There can be little doubt that his wave of constant attacks on almost every conceivable issue will continue now that he has moved to a different job just across the Bay.
"It is not known at this stage what the municipal elections will mean for Mr Sanchez. It will be recalled that on taking office he declared that he wanted good relations with Gibraltar and came here to shake the Chief Minister’s hand. This spirit of friendship did not last very long. He will be best remembered as the Mayor who formulated plans to place a toll in the vicinity of the frontier with Gibraltar and even as the person who held office when a storm drain emitting sewage was diverted from a marina on the Spanish side into the Western Beach basin.
"At a national level, the Partido Popular have made it very clear that they intend to cherry-pick different parts of the Cordoba agreement that are not in line with their policy on Gibraltar. They have never felt bound by anything that was signed by the PSOE to which they were not a party. Indeed, PP spokesmen have also expressed reservations in the past at the very structure of the trilateral forum itself. The fact that they could form the next Government of Spain in a few months time, if the local election results are anything to go by, is something that will make many people extremely nervous given their past pronouncements on Gibraltar."
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
Evangelical Alliance against mediums
The Evangelical Alliance of Gibraltar says it would like to express its concern at the news that a psychic medium will once again be visiting Gibraltar.
"We live in a society which, for very good reasons, demands strict regulation from those who make their living out of dealing with vulnerable people. There would however appear to be a flagrant gap in the protection that our society offers. It would seem that any ‘self styled’ medium can set up shop, backed only by a ‘selling of themselves’ and their celebrity status. The people who will be attracted to this type of event are often in a situation of vulnerability, as they try to come to grips with bereavement and grief, and, in many cases, are unable to face the reality of their loss. That these mediums can appear, for a not unsubstantial amount of money, to make contact with departed loved ones is insensitive, misleading and false," they say.
And add: "While not everyone believes in the Bible, it contains many simple truths that give purpose and meaning to life. The Bible tells us to avoid certain behaviours and attitudes that are dangerous to our physical, mental or spiritual wellbeing. One issue the Bible deals with repeatedly concerns any attempt to contact the dead. It clearly tells us that no good comes of these attempts and it will always be, in some measure, harmful. On a practical level, it is a fact that counselling a vulnerable person can lead to greater hurt, however caring and well meaning the practitioner may be. This is borne out by the fact that anyone involved in the counselling profession is required to have ‘indemnity insurance’ in place."
The Evangelical Alliance go on to say that they would like to know if mediums are required to have any such insurance in place to safeguard against the damage they can cause. "While never accepting that being a medium is a legitimate way of earning money, the authorities should be concerned that earnings are declared and be subject to Gibraltar Taxation. The vulnerable in our society deserve and have every right to expect protection at every level. We hope that the Government will see fit to put in place some kind of control of this nefarious activity," ends their press release.
"We live in a society which, for very good reasons, demands strict regulation from those who make their living out of dealing with vulnerable people. There would however appear to be a flagrant gap in the protection that our society offers. It would seem that any ‘self styled’ medium can set up shop, backed only by a ‘selling of themselves’ and their celebrity status. The people who will be attracted to this type of event are often in a situation of vulnerability, as they try to come to grips with bereavement and grief, and, in many cases, are unable to face the reality of their loss. That these mediums can appear, for a not unsubstantial amount of money, to make contact with departed loved ones is insensitive, misleading and false," they say.
And add: "While not everyone believes in the Bible, it contains many simple truths that give purpose and meaning to life. The Bible tells us to avoid certain behaviours and attitudes that are dangerous to our physical, mental or spiritual wellbeing. One issue the Bible deals with repeatedly concerns any attempt to contact the dead. It clearly tells us that no good comes of these attempts and it will always be, in some measure, harmful. On a practical level, it is a fact that counselling a vulnerable person can lead to greater hurt, however caring and well meaning the practitioner may be. This is borne out by the fact that anyone involved in the counselling profession is required to have ‘indemnity insurance’ in place."
The Evangelical Alliance go on to say that they would like to know if mediums are required to have any such insurance in place to safeguard against the damage they can cause. "While never accepting that being a medium is a legitimate way of earning money, the authorities should be concerned that earnings are declared and be subject to Gibraltar Taxation. The vulnerable in our society deserve and have every right to expect protection at every level. We hope that the Government will see fit to put in place some kind of control of this nefarious activity," ends their press release.
Monday, 23 May 2011
What hope for Gib if Sanchez goes and Landaluce comes in?
Is the PP mayor of La Linea in or out? That is the question being asked in Gibraltar following the Spanish municipal elections, as the man has earned the wrath of many by his policies, poised to wreck good neighbourly relations.
Alejandro Sanchez managed to top the poll but with 11 seats it is not enough to gain an absolute majority. His fortunes may be down, but will he be out?
He needs to have at least 13 seats to secure his mayorship for another term. That means striking a pact with either the leftwing IU or the nationalist PA, neither of whom appear too keen to strike a deal with Sanchez.
If that is the case, the last days of Sanchez as mayor have arrived.
Political observers reckon that the PSOE, with 10 seats, will do a deal with both the IU and the PA - and if that is concluded, a socialist will be the new mayor of La Linea.
Such a move would bring about better relations between Gibraltar and La Linea.
Even if that happens, what about developments in Algeciras across the bay?
In Algeciras, another PP candidate regarded as anti-Gibraltar, Jose Ignacio Landaluce, is now to become the mayor of Algeciras, his party having obtained 16 seats - with the nearest rival, the PSOE, with only 6.
So, it might be a case of Sanchez ceasing to be a headache, and Landaluce replacing him!
What hope for Gib?
Alejandro Sanchez managed to top the poll but with 11 seats it is not enough to gain an absolute majority. His fortunes may be down, but will he be out?
He needs to have at least 13 seats to secure his mayorship for another term. That means striking a pact with either the leftwing IU or the nationalist PA, neither of whom appear too keen to strike a deal with Sanchez.
If that is the case, the last days of Sanchez as mayor have arrived.
Political observers reckon that the PSOE, with 10 seats, will do a deal with both the IU and the PA - and if that is concluded, a socialist will be the new mayor of La Linea.
Such a move would bring about better relations between Gibraltar and La Linea.
Even if that happens, what about developments in Algeciras across the bay?
In Algeciras, another PP candidate regarded as anti-Gibraltar, Jose Ignacio Landaluce, is now to become the mayor of Algeciras, his party having obtained 16 seats - with the nearest rival, the PSOE, with only 6.
So, it might be a case of Sanchez ceasing to be a headache, and Landaluce replacing him!
What hope for Gib?
Friday, 20 May 2011
Road names mismatch
With due respect to whoever renamed those roads, I must say that I don't agree. Do you? Read on!
Devil's Tower Road is to be renamed as North Front Avenue, but why not Bishop Devlin Avenue. After all, Bishop Devlin was associated with St Theresa's Church on that very road.
What doesn't make sense is that Cannon Lane is instead to be renamed Bishop Devlin Road.
Since Cannon Lane rans behind the Cathedral, and since Bishop Caruana was associated with the Cathedral, why not name Cannon Lane as Bishop Caruana Lane?
After all, the other lane nearby is named after Bishop Rapallo.
The mismatch continues. Because an unnamed new road in the new MidHarbours Estate is to be named Bishop Caruana Road!
Extract from the Armando La Grande column
Devil's Tower Road is to be renamed as North Front Avenue, but why not Bishop Devlin Avenue. After all, Bishop Devlin was associated with St Theresa's Church on that very road.
What doesn't make sense is that Cannon Lane is instead to be renamed Bishop Devlin Road.
Since Cannon Lane rans behind the Cathedral, and since Bishop Caruana was associated with the Cathedral, why not name Cannon Lane as Bishop Caruana Lane?
After all, the other lane nearby is named after Bishop Rapallo.
The mismatch continues. Because an unnamed new road in the new MidHarbours Estate is to be named Bishop Caruana Road!
Extract from the Armando La Grande column
Monday, 16 May 2011
Is there room in the House for back benchers?
It's crazy but great fun. The smaller you are the bigger you want to be, like this notion of having backbenchers in our mini Parliament.
I remember our Parliament had 15-seats, I think. Now, we have 17. And they want to make it bigger. Where would they put the backbenchers, down in the Piazza?
And how big is big in these days of grandeur. I suppose we could squeeze a couple behind the government and another couple behind the opposition, but is there more space in the House?
Another point is whether having backbenchers would work in Gibraltar, which is the place where people are afraid to criticise the government in public. Would they criticise the Government from a back bench? If they did so, how long would they last before they were promoted to be a I-see nothing-I hear nothing minister?
It must also be considered that the more fronts and backs we have, the more the number of candidates we would need to vote for. It's bad enough having to remember who are the 10 you have to vote for at present.
It is UK practice that there be more back benchers than ministers. If we follow that practice would be have over 17 backbenchers. Where do we draw the line?
I remember our Parliament had 15-seats, I think. Now, we have 17. And they want to make it bigger. Where would they put the backbenchers, down in the Piazza?
And how big is big in these days of grandeur. I suppose we could squeeze a couple behind the government and another couple behind the opposition, but is there more space in the House?
Another point is whether having backbenchers would work in Gibraltar, which is the place where people are afraid to criticise the government in public. Would they criticise the Government from a back bench? If they did so, how long would they last before they were promoted to be a I-see nothing-I hear nothing minister?
It must also be considered that the more fronts and backs we have, the more the number of candidates we would need to vote for. It's bad enough having to remember who are the 10 you have to vote for at present.
It is UK practice that there be more back benchers than ministers. If we follow that practice would be have over 17 backbenchers. Where do we draw the line?
Friday, 6 May 2011
From incursions to invasion of Gibraltar's territorial waters
The Spanish foreign minister Trinidad Jimenez is again calling on Britain to stop the incidents taking place at sea, when in fact it should be the other way about: It is Britain who should be telling Spain to stop incursions and invasions of Gibraltar's waters.
Further, they are trying to play down the latest incident with the Spanish Navy warship, at first even saying that they knew nothing about it, as if Spanish naval ships took the law into their own hands without proper instructions being given.
Certainly, the Spanish Navy warship incident takes matters one step up the ladder because it represents an invasion of other's territory.
That is why the Spanish government delegate in Andalucia, Luis Garrido, has come out saying that there was no invasion of the waters that surround Gibraltar.
How can they make such incredibly absurd statements? Everyone knows that the Spanish warship was asking merchant vessels to lift anchor and leave Spanish waters - and that this prompted a response from the Rock, not just warnings from the MOD but clarification from the Gibraltar port authority to the merchant vessels affected that the waters were British and they could stay there.
On the question of the waters there are two areas of responsibility: The MOD whose role is to defend Gibraltar's territorial waters; and the RGP whose role it is to take policing action.
If neither or both are not properly equipped to discharge their responsibilities, for one reason or another, appropriate action must be taken to ensure that we do not make fools of ourselves.
Not only that, but we expose our law enforcement agencies and also MOD personnel to dangerous situations.
The incidents have now been going on long enough for proper action to have been taken to ensure that those whose role it is to defend Gibraltar's territorial waters have the assets to undertake their duties properly and effectively.
06-05-11
Further, they are trying to play down the latest incident with the Spanish Navy warship, at first even saying that they knew nothing about it, as if Spanish naval ships took the law into their own hands without proper instructions being given.
Certainly, the Spanish Navy warship incident takes matters one step up the ladder because it represents an invasion of other's territory.
That is why the Spanish government delegate in Andalucia, Luis Garrido, has come out saying that there was no invasion of the waters that surround Gibraltar.
How can they make such incredibly absurd statements? Everyone knows that the Spanish warship was asking merchant vessels to lift anchor and leave Spanish waters - and that this prompted a response from the Rock, not just warnings from the MOD but clarification from the Gibraltar port authority to the merchant vessels affected that the waters were British and they could stay there.
On the question of the waters there are two areas of responsibility: The MOD whose role is to defend Gibraltar's territorial waters; and the RGP whose role it is to take policing action.
If neither or both are not properly equipped to discharge their responsibilities, for one reason or another, appropriate action must be taken to ensure that we do not make fools of ourselves.
Not only that, but we expose our law enforcement agencies and also MOD personnel to dangerous situations.
The incidents have now been going on long enough for proper action to have been taken to ensure that those whose role it is to defend Gibraltar's territorial waters have the assets to undertake their duties properly and effectively.
06-05-11
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)