He's a prick of the highest order. He's even edited screenshots in an attempt to get people done for racism
And it's not an island, it's a group of islands. I doubt he even knows where they are, I'm sure he couldn't name one or know how big they are, how many people live there or anything other than we once fought the Argies or control. The islands were uninhabited when we colonised them and Argentina did not even exist at the time.
A genuine question to the many Labour voters on here. Why is it that the Labour party has been and is so eager to intervene militarily in foreign countries under the guise of "regime change" yet views the defence of British territory like the Falklands with contempt?
One of the reasons that the Argentinians decided to invade in 1982 was that a Tory defense minister, John Nott, encouraged by Margeret Thatcher decided to scrap the patrol ship HMS Endurance and to sell HMS Invincible to Australia. These decisions were only reversed after the Falklands war and about 250 British dead.
The Chief of the Naval Staff at the time, Admiral Leach later described Nott as a disaster and said that had Jim Callaghan, ex Royal Navy, still been Prime Minister, the Argentinians would not have dared to attempt invasion in the first place.
A genuine question to the many Labour voters on here. Why is it that the Labour party has been and is so eager to intervene militarily in foreign countries under the guise of "regime change" yet views the defence of British territory like the Falklands with contempt?
Who says the Labour party view Falklands with contempt?
Stan Collymore is not the labour party.
Indeed he is not but his viewpoint does appear prevalent amongst supporters....
What are the permutations that would result in us playing them in this World Cup
I would be happy for them to unfurl that it would raise the temperature.
I might be wrong but the earliest we can meet Argentina (given that they win their group and we win ours lololol) is the semi-final. Otherwise in the final.
A genuine question to the many Labour voters on here. Why is it that the Labour party has been and is so eager to intervene militarily in foreign countries under the guise of "regime change" yet views the defence of British territory like the Falklands with contempt?
Does Stan Collymore making a tit of himself (once again) really need to be turned into a party political issue?
A genuine question to the many Labour voters on here. Why is it that the Labour party has been and is so eager to intervene militarily in foreign countries under the guise of "regime change" yet views the defence of British territory like the Falklands with contempt?
Len - you're starting to become a parody of yourself. Last I looked, Stan Collymore wasn't particularly deeply involved in formulating Labour foreign policy...
A genuine question to the many Labour voters on here. Why is it that the Labour party has been and is so eager to intervene militarily in foreign countries under the guise of "regime change" yet views the defence of British territory like the Falklands with contempt?
Does Stan Collymore making a tit of himself (once again) really need to be turned into a party political issue?
Stan Collymore was the one to mention Labour in this context hence it is relevant.
A genuine question to the many Labour voters on here. Why is it that the Labour party has been and is so eager to intervene militarily in foreign countries under the guise of "regime change" yet views the defence of British territory like the Falklands with contempt?
Does Stan Collymore making a tit of himself (once again) really need to be turned into a party political issue?
Stan Collymore was the one to mention Labour in this context hence it is relevant.
This is what he said. Am I missing something, other than the censored swear word?
I am a labour voter and feel the Falklands issue is best served by forgetting the posturing of politicians from both countries and by ignoring the lack of understanding by the majority of the populations of both Argentina and the United Kingdom.
The only people that actually matter are the inhabitants of those islands. What they want to happen should be paramount.
A genuine question to the many Labour voters on here. Why is it that the Labour party has been and is so eager to intervene militarily in foreign countries under the guise of "regime change" yet views the defence of British territory like the Falklands with contempt?
Does Stan Collymore making a tit of himself (once again) really need to be turned into a party political issue?
Stan Collymore was the one to mention Labour in this context hence it is relevant.
This is what he said. Am I missing something, other than the censored swear word?
Here's a headline for you...
Footballer takes time out from thoughts of gangbangs with page three wannabes to exercise his one and only brain cell.
The 99% vote in favour of remaining British really doesn't suprise me. I served on the islands in 92 and Found the locals to be extremely patriotic and proud to be part of our nation. I just wish more on this island felt half as strongly about it as they do...............
A genuine question to the many Labour voters on here. Why is it that the Labour party has been and is so eager to intervene militarily in foreign countries under the guise of "regime change" yet views the defence of British territory like the Falklands with contempt?
Who says the Labour party view Falklands with contempt?
Stan Collymore is not the labour party.
Agree never heard the Labour party imply that thye do not support the continued maintenance of the Falklands as part of the British territories.
Do Falkland Islanders have right of abode in the UK.
Give South America back to the native south amercians.. Argentina only existed (independent from Spain) since 1815. British rule reasserted over Falklands 1833
Anyone see that documentary on the Falklands most daring raid not too long ago, aging Vulcan bombers, refuelling mid flight etc
A genuine question to the many Labour voters on here. Why is it that the Labour party has been and is so eager to intervene militarily in foreign countries under the guise of "regime change" yet views the defence of British territory like the Falklands with contempt?
Does Stan Collymore making a tit of himself (once again) really need to be turned into a party political issue?
Stan Collymore was the one to mention Labour in this context hence it is relevant.
This is what he said. Am I missing something, other than the censored swear word?
From the linked article:
......"In response to a request from Falklands Radio on Twitter for Collymore to explain his comments in an interview, he replied: 'The tweets are unambiguous enough for you to use common sense.'
Collymore, who said he had voted Labour in every election since his first in 1990, also published an image of a tweet he posted in 2012 that encouraged people to wear a poppy on Remembrance Day.
UK v ARGENTINA: FALKLANDS WAR
Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, a remote UK colony, in April 1982. It engaged British and Argentinian forces in the biggest naval conflict since the Second World War.
Argentinian junta leader General Leopoldo Galtieri wanted to reclaim sovereignty of the islands, and sent 600 troops to take them.
But the UK fought back, with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher saying the 1,800 residents there were ‘of British tradition and stock’.
The battle ended 74 days after the initial invasion, on June 14. Some 655 Argentine and 255 British servicemen lost their lives in the conflict, as well as three Falkland Islanders.
In a referendum in March 2013, which saw a 92 per cent turnout, 1,513 islanders vote to retain their status as British overseas territory, with just three voting against.
A genuine question to the many Labour voters on here. Why is it that the Labour party has been and is so eager to intervene militarily in foreign countries under the guise of "regime change" yet views the defence of British territory like the Falklands with contempt?
Does Stan Collymore making a tit of himself (once again) really need to be turned into a party political issue?
Stan Collymore was the one to mention Labour in this context hence it is relevant.
This is what he said. Am I missing something, other than the censored swear word?
From the linked article:
......"In response to a request from Falklands Radio on Twitter for Collymore to explain his comments in an interview, he replied: 'The tweets are unambiguous enough for you to use common sense.'
Collymore, who said he had voted Labour in every election since his first in 1990, also published an image of a tweet he posted in 2012 that encouraged people to wear a poppy on Remembrance Day.
UK v ARGENTINA: FALKLANDS WAR
Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, a remote UK colony, in April 1982. It engaged British and Argentinian forces in the biggest naval conflict since the Second World War.
Argentinian junta leader General Leopoldo Galtieri wanted to reclaim sovereignty of the islands, and sent 600 troops to take them.
But the UK fought back, with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher saying the 1,800 residents there were ‘of British tradition and stock’.
The battle ended 74 days after the initial invasion, on June 14. Some 655 Argentine and 255 British servicemen lost their lives in the conflict, as well as three Falkland Islanders.
In a referendum in March 2013, which saw a 92 per cent turnout, 1,513 islanders vote to retain their status as British overseas territory, with just three voting against.
It's not a quote. He never actually said those words.
Typical Daily Mail inserting political digs where they have no place. Obviously their readers lap up any chance they get to score political points too.
Historically the Malvinas belong to Argentina but the citizens living on the Falklands wish to be British. As oil may be involved, it is expedient to wave the flag. The former islanders of Diego Garcia may be forgiven for viewing the whole situation as a shameless political sham.
A genuine question to the many Labour voters on here. Why is it that the Labour party has been and is so eager to intervene militarily in foreign countries under the guise of "regime change" yet views the defence of British territory like the Falklands with contempt?
Does Stan Collymore making a tit of himself (once again) really need to be turned into a party political issue?
Stan Collymore was the one to mention Labour in this context hence it is relevant.
This is what he said. Am I missing something, other than the censored swear word?
From the linked article:
......"In response to a request from Falklands Radio on Twitter for Collymore to explain his comments in an interview, he replied: 'The tweets are unambiguous enough for you to use common sense.'
Collymore, who said he had voted Labour in every election since his first in 1990, also published an image of a tweet he posted in 2012 that encouraged people to wear a poppy on Remembrance Day.
UK v ARGENTINA: FALKLANDS WAR
Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, a remote UK colony, in April 1982. It engaged British and Argentinian forces in the biggest naval conflict since the Second World War.
Argentinian junta leader General Leopoldo Galtieri wanted to reclaim sovereignty of the islands, and sent 600 troops to take them.
But the UK fought back, with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher saying the 1,800 residents there were ‘of British tradition and stock’.
The battle ended 74 days after the initial invasion, on June 14. Some 655 Argentine and 255 British servicemen lost their lives in the conflict, as well as three Falkland Islanders.
In a referendum in March 2013, which saw a 92 per cent turnout, 1,513 islanders vote to retain their status as British overseas territory, with just three voting against.
It's not a quote. He never actually said those words.
Typical Daily Mail inserting political digs where they have no place. Obviously their readers lap up any chance they get to score political points too.
The article says, if you read it, Collymore, WHO SAID he had voted Labour in every election since his first in 1990 however you carry on believing he didn't say it if you like.
If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? And I should answer in one word, it is murder, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required. Why, then, to this other question: What is property? May I not likewise answer, it is robbery, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?
A genuine question to the many Labour voters on here. Why is it that the Labour party has been and is so eager to intervene militarily in foreign countries under the guise of "regime change" yet views the defence of British territory like the Falklands with contempt?
Does Stan Collymore making a tit of himself (once again) really need to be turned into a party political issue?
Stan Collymore was the one to mention Labour in this context hence it is relevant.
This is what he said. Am I missing something, other than the censored swear word?
From the linked article:
......"In response to a request from Falklands Radio on Twitter for Collymore to explain his comments in an interview, he replied: 'The tweets are unambiguous enough for you to use common sense.'
Collymore, who said he had voted Labour in every election since his first in 1990, also published an image of a tweet he posted in 2012 that encouraged people to wear a poppy on Remembrance Day.
UK v ARGENTINA: FALKLANDS WAR
Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, a remote UK colony, in April 1982. It engaged British and Argentinian forces in the biggest naval conflict since the Second World War.
Argentinian junta leader General Leopoldo Galtieri wanted to reclaim sovereignty of the islands, and sent 600 troops to take them.
But the UK fought back, with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher saying the 1,800 residents there were ‘of British tradition and stock’.
The battle ended 74 days after the initial invasion, on June 14. Some 655 Argentine and 255 British servicemen lost their lives in the conflict, as well as three Falkland Islanders.
In a referendum in March 2013, which saw a 92 per cent turnout, 1,513 islanders vote to retain their status as British overseas territory, with just three voting against.
It's not a quote. He never actually said those words.
Typical Daily Mail inserting political digs where they have no place. Obviously their readers lap up any chance they get to score political points too.
The article says, if you read it, Collymore, WHO SAID he had voted Labour in every election since his first in 1990 however you carry on believing he didn't say it if you like.
If it said "Collymore, who played 65 matches for Nottingham Forest and 64 matches for Liverpool", would it mean that all Forest and Liverpool players think the Falklands should be handed to Argentina?
Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men, we didn't have any kind of prison. Because of this, we had no delinquents. Without a prison, there can be no delinquents. We had no locks nor keys and therefore among us there were no thieves. When someone was so poor that he couldn't afford a horse, a tent or a blanket, he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift. We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property. We didn't know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being was not determined by his wealth. We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians, therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another. We were really in bad shape before the white men arrived and I don't know how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society.
A genuine question to the many Labour voters on here. Why is it that the Labour party has been and is so eager to intervene militarily in foreign countries under the guise of "regime change" yet views the defence of British territory like the Falklands with contempt?
Does Stan Collymore making a tit of himself (once again) really need to be turned into a party political issue?
Stan Collymore was the one to mention Labour in this context hence it is relevant.
This is what he said. Am I missing something, other than the censored swear word?
From the linked article:
......"In response to a request from Falklands Radio on Twitter for Collymore to explain his comments in an interview, he replied: 'The tweets are unambiguous enough for you to use common sense.'
Collymore, who said he had voted Labour in every election since his first in 1990, also published an image of a tweet he posted in 2012 that encouraged people to wear a poppy on Remembrance Day.
UK v ARGENTINA: FALKLANDS WAR
Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, a remote UK colony, in April 1982. It engaged British and Argentinian forces in the biggest naval conflict since the Second World War.
Argentinian junta leader General Leopoldo Galtieri wanted to reclaim sovereignty of the islands, and sent 600 troops to take them.
But the UK fought back, with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher saying the 1,800 residents there were ‘of British tradition and stock’.
The battle ended 74 days after the initial invasion, on June 14. Some 655 Argentine and 255 British servicemen lost their lives in the conflict, as well as three Falkland Islanders.
In a referendum in March 2013, which saw a 92 per cent turnout, 1,513 islanders vote to retain their status as British overseas territory, with just three voting against.
It's not a quote. He never actually said those words.
Typical Daily Mail inserting political digs where they have no place. Obviously their readers lap up any chance they get to score political points too.
The article says, if you read it, Collymore, WHO SAID he had voted Labour in every election since his first in 1990 however you carry on believing he didn't say it if you like.
If it said "Collymore, who played 65 matches for Nottingham Forest and 64 matches for Liverpool", would it mean that all Forest and Liverpool players think the Falklands should be handed to Argentina?
One is about ideology and belief and I have already supplied a link showing the support amongst devotees of that ideology for returning the Falklands to Argentina. The other is a factual statement of career history so not comparing like with like.
They don't allow it, which is why the Argentines will cop a very big fine for this, it's disgraceful conduct from them.
FIFA take a very strong line on this stuff because once they let it start then people will keep pushing it further.
I'm pretty sure Argentina do the same thing before every game and have done for a few years now - FIFA have never intervened before.
I would seriously doubt that is true but would wełcome evidence to the contrary.
"It is often unfurled before Argentina play international matches, and apparently indicates the players’ support of the country’s claims to sovereignty over the islands, which have been ruled by Britain since 1833."
Comments
Ignorance is a very dangerous thing.
http://www.leftfutures.org/2012/04/labour-and-the-falklands-what-foot-got-wrong/
Argentina won't make the final.
This is a serious political thread pal.
Why bring Palace into it ?
Am I missing something, other than the censored swear word?
A referendum was held in the Falklands and 99% wanted it to be owned by Britain, why can't Argentina accept democracy?
The only people that actually matter are the inhabitants of those islands. What they want to happen should be paramount.
Footballer takes time out from thoughts of gangbangs with page three wannabes to exercise his one and only brain cell.
Do Falkland Islanders have right of abode in the UK.
Anyone see that documentary on the Falklands most daring raid not too long ago, aging Vulcan bombers, refuelling mid flight etc
......"In response to a request from Falklands Radio on Twitter for Collymore to explain his comments in an interview, he replied: 'The tweets are unambiguous enough for you to use common sense.'
Collymore, who said he had voted Labour in every election since his first in 1990, also published an image of a tweet he posted in 2012 that encouraged people to wear a poppy on Remembrance Day.
UK v ARGENTINA: FALKLANDS WAR
Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, a remote UK colony, in April 1982. It engaged British and Argentinian forces in the biggest naval conflict since the Second World War.
Argentinian junta leader General Leopoldo Galtieri wanted to reclaim sovereignty of the islands, and sent 600 troops to take them.
But the UK fought back, with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher saying the 1,800 residents there were ‘of British tradition and stock’.
The battle ended 74 days after the initial invasion, on June 14. Some 655 Argentine and 255 British servicemen lost their lives in the conflict, as well as three Falkland Islanders.
In a referendum in March 2013, which saw a 92 per cent turnout, 1,513 islanders vote to retain their status as British overseas territory, with just three voting against.
Typical Daily Mail inserting political digs where they have no place. Obviously their readers lap up any chance they get to score political points too.
FIFA take a very strong line on this stuff because once they let it start then people will keep pushing it further.
—Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, What is Property?
we didn't have any kind of prison. Because of this, we had no delinquents.
Without a prison, there can be no delinquents.
We had no locks nor keys and therefore among us there were no thieves.
When someone was so poor that he couldn't afford a horse, a tent or a blanket,
he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift.
We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property.
We didn't know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being
was not determined by his wealth.
We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians,
therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another.
We were really in bad shape before the white men arrived and I don't know
how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things
that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society.
John (Fire) Lame Deer
Sioux Lakota - 1903-1976
The answer to your question is therefore no.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/argentina-players-falklands-protest-sparks-anger-ahead-of-world-cup-warmup-friendly-against-slovenia-9507908.html