Fury as BA calls Falkland Islands capital by its ARGENTINIAN name in ‘ludicrous and insulting' blunder
Falklands war veterans slammed the error, which BA promised to investigate
FALKLANDS FURY Fury as BA calls Falkland Islands capital by its ARGENTINIAN name in 'ludicrous and insulting' blunder
BRITISH Airways has been branded disgraceful for using the Argentinian name for the capital of the Falklands Islands on in-flight entertainment screens.
The UK's flag carrier airline refers to Port Stanley as Puerto Argentino.
Advertisement
3
Port Stanley is the Falkland Islands' only city
Credit: Rex
3
255 British military personnel died in the 74-day conflict in 1982
Credit: Getty
The British title is relegated to a set of brackets underneath.
Ed West, of The Spectator magazine, spotted the blunder and said: 'Curious wording for a British Airways in-flight map.'
Last night, BA promised to investigate as the error was described as 'ludicrous' and 'insulting' by Falklands war veterans.
Argentina still claims sovereignty but its invading forces lost the 74-day conflict in 1982.
Advertisement
British forces scrambled halfway around the world to put down General Leopoldo Galtieri's troops after they took Port Stanley in a surprise raid.
This Saturday is the 43rd anniversary of Britain's victory.
Former head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Lord West, who won the Distinguished Service Cross during the war, said the name error was 'disrespectful' to islanders.
He told The Sun: 'It's disgraceful.
Advertisement
'The Falklands are a British overseas territory and 99.9 per cent of islanders want to stay British.
'We have said very clearly there will be no discussions about sovereignty.
The New British Airways First Class Seat
'For the flag carrier airline to give Port Stanley another name is unforgivable.'
Lord West, whose HMS Ardent was sunk by Argentine forces, added: 'I don't know why they would do it.
Advertisement
'Everyone on the Falkland Islands calls it Port Stanley.
'They should change it back as soon as possible.
'This is insulting to the population of Port Stanley.'
In all, 255 British personnel lost their lives defending the islands.
Advertisement
In 2017 Argentina's senate voted to rename Port Stanley as Puerto Argentino and celebrate Sovereignty Day there if it is ever recaptured.
The in-flight map shows only the names of world capitals and not countries' names.
It means BA does not reference the Falklands by its Argentinian name Islas Malvinas.
British Airways' parent company, International Airlines Group, is based in Spain.
Advertisement
A BA spokeswoman said: 'We are grateful this has been brought to our attention.
'We'll be reviewing it with the third party supplier that provides the in-flight map service.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
44 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Reeves signs off on £14bn to build new nuclear plant Sizewell C
The Chancellor is set to confirm the funding at the GMB Congress on Tuesday. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said new nuclear power capacity was needed to deliver a 'golden age of clean energy abundance'. Trade unions welcomed the move, which the Treasury said would go towards creating 10,000 jobs, including 1,500 apprenticeships. But the head of a campaign group opposing the plant criticised the decision to commit the funding, saying it is still not clear what the total cost will be. Nuclear plants are seen as increasingly important electricity sources as the Government tries to decarbonise Britain's grid by 2030, replacing fossil fuels with green power. The last time Britain completed one was in 1987, which was the Sizewell B plant. Hinkley Point C, in Somerset, is under construction and is expected to produce enough power for about six million homes when it opens, but that may not be until 2031. The Energy Secretary said: 'We need new nuclear to deliver a golden age of clean energy abundance, because that is the only way to protect family finances, take back control of our energy, and tackle the climate crisis. 'This is the Government's clean energy mission in action – investing in lower bills and good jobs for energy security.' It will get the UK off the 'fossil fuel rollercoaster', he separately told The Guardian. 'We know that we're going to have to see electricity demand at least double by 2050. All the expert advice says nuclear has a really important role to play in the energy system. 'In any sensible reckoning, this is essential to get to our clean power and net zero ambitions.' The joint managing directors of Sizewell C, Julia Pyke and Nigel Cann, said: 'Today marks the start of an exciting new chapter for Sizewell C, the UK's first British-owned nuclear power plant in over 30 years.' At the peak of construction, Sizewell C is expected to provide 10,000 jobs and the company behind the project has already signed £330 million worth of contracts with local businesses. The plant, which will power the equivalent of six million homes, is planned to be operational in the 2030s. The Government is also due to confirm one of Europe's first small modular reactor programmes and will invest £2.5 billion over five years in fusion energy research as part of plans to boost the UK's nuclear industry. The GMB union said giving Sizewell C the go-ahead was 'momentous'. Regional Secretary Warren Kenny said: 'Nuclear power is essential for clean, affordable, and reliable energy – without new nuclear, there can be no net zero. 'Sizewell C will provide thousands of good, skilled, unionised jobs and we look forward to working closely with the Government and Sizewell C to help secure a greener future for this country's energy sector.' Mike Clancy, general secretary of Prospect, said: 'Delivering this funding for Sizewell C is a vital step forward, this project is critical to securing the future of the nuclear industry in the UK. 'New nuclear is essential to achieving net zero, providing a baseload of clean and secure energy, as well as supporting good, unionised jobs. 'Further investment in SMRs and fusion research shows we are finally serious about developing a 21st-century nuclear industry. All funding must be backed up by a whole-industry plan to ensure we have the workforce and skills we need for these plans to succeed.' Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C said ministers had not 'come clean' about the full cost of the project, which the group have previously estimated could be some £40 billion. 'There still appears to be no final investment decision for Sizewell C, but £14.2 billion in taxpayers' funding, a decision we condemn and firmly believe the government will come to regret. 'Where is the benefit for voters in ploughing more money into Sizewell C that could be spent on other priorities, and when the project will add to consumer bills and is guaranteed to be late and overspent just like Hinkley C? 'Ministers have still not come clean about Sizewell C's cost and, given negotiations with private investors are incomplete, they have signed away all leverage and will be forced to offer generous deals that undermine value for money. Starmer and Reeves have just signed up to HS2 mark 2.'
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
Reeves signs off on £14bn to build new nuclear plant Sizewell C
Rachel Reeves has signed off on £14.2 billion of investment to build the new Sizewell C nuclear plant as part of the spending review. The Chancellor is set to confirm the funding at the GMB Congress on Tuesday. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said new nuclear power capacity was needed to deliver a 'golden age of clean energy abundance'. Trade unions welcomed the move, which the Treasury said would go towards creating 10,000 jobs, including 1,500 apprenticeships. But the head of a campaign group opposing the plant criticised the decision to commit the funding, saying it is still not clear what the total cost will be. Nuclear plants are seen as increasingly important electricity sources as the Government tries to decarbonise Britain's grid by 2030, replacing fossil fuels with green power. The last time Britain completed one was in 1987, which was the Sizewell B plant. Hinkley Point C, in Somerset, is under construction and is expected to produce enough power for about six million homes when it opens, but that may not be until 2031. The Energy Secretary said: 'We need new nuclear to deliver a golden age of clean energy abundance, because that is the only way to protect family finances, take back control of our energy, and tackle the climate crisis. 'This is the Government's clean energy mission in action – investing in lower bills and good jobs for energy security.' It will get the UK off the 'fossil fuel rollercoaster', he separately told The Guardian. 'We know that we're going to have to see electricity demand at least double by 2050. All the expert advice says nuclear has a really important role to play in the energy system. 'In any sensible reckoning, this is essential to get to our clean power and net zero ambitions.' The joint managing directors of Sizewell C, Julia Pyke and Nigel Cann, said: 'Today marks the start of an exciting new chapter for Sizewell C, the UK's first British-owned nuclear power plant in over 30 years.' At the peak of construction, Sizewell C is expected to provide 10,000 jobs and the company behind the project has already signed £330 million worth of contracts with local businesses. The plant, which will power the equivalent of six million homes, is planned to be operational in the 2030s. The Government is also due to confirm one of Europe's first small modular reactor programmes and will invest £2.5 billion over five years in fusion energy research as part of plans to boost the UK's nuclear industry. The GMB union said giving Sizewell C the go-ahead was 'momentous'. Regional Secretary Warren Kenny said: 'Nuclear power is essential for clean, affordable, and reliable energy – without new nuclear, there can be no net zero. 'Sizewell C will provide thousands of good, skilled, unionised jobs and we look forward to working closely with the Government and Sizewell C to help secure a greener future for this country's energy sector.' Mike Clancy, general secretary of Prospect, said: 'Delivering this funding for Sizewell C is a vital step forward, this project is critical to securing the future of the nuclear industry in the UK. 'New nuclear is essential to achieving net zero, providing a baseload of clean and secure energy, as well as supporting good, unionised jobs. 'Further investment in SMRs and fusion research shows we are finally serious about developing a 21st-century nuclear industry. All funding must be backed up by a whole-industry plan to ensure we have the workforce and skills we need for these plans to succeed.' Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C said ministers had not 'come clean' about the full cost of the project, which the group have previously estimated could be some £40 billion. 'There still appears to be no final investment decision for Sizewell C, but £14.2 billion in taxpayers' funding, a decision we condemn and firmly believe the government will come to regret. 'Where is the benefit for voters in ploughing more money into Sizewell C that could be spent on other priorities, and when the project will add to consumer bills and is guaranteed to be late and overspent just like Hinkley C? 'Ministers have still not come clean about Sizewell C's cost and, given negotiations with private investors are incomplete, they have signed away all leverage and will be forced to offer generous deals that undermine value for money. Starmer and Reeves have just signed up to HS2 mark 2.'
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Family visa income threshold should not rise to skilled worker level
Skilled workers are only eligible to come to the UK if they earn a salary of £38,700 or more, compared to £29,000 required mainly for British citizens or settled residents to bring their partner to the country under family visas. The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) set out its recommendations after a review requested by the Home Secretary to look at how to set a minimum income requirement (MIR) for family visas that balances economic wellbeing and family life. The previous government planned to introduce the higher threshold for family visa applicants to be equivalent to the skilled worker level. But the committee's report said: 'Given the family route that we are reviewing has a completely different objective and purpose to the work route, we do not understand the rationale for the threshold being set using this method. 'We do not recommend the approach based on the skilled worker salary threshold as it is unrelated to the family route and is the most likely to conflict with international law and obligations (e.g. Article 8).' Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the right to private and family life that can be applied to migration cases in the UK. The UK's current £29,000 threshold is high compared to other high-income countries reviewed by the MAC. The analysis found a high proportion of applicants for partner visas are women and 90% are under the age of 44. Pakistan is the largest nationality to use the route applying from outside the country. The committee's analysis gave some options that a threshold of £24,000 to £28,000 could give more priority to economic wellbeing, such as reducing the burden to taxpayers, than on family life. It also suggested a criteria of £23,000 to £25,000 to ensure families can support themselves but not necessarily require them to earn a salary above minimum wage. Chairman of MAC, Professor Brian Bell, said: 'While the decision on where to set the threshold is ultimately a political one, we have provided evidence on the impacts of financial requirements on families and economic wellbeing, and highlight the key considerations the government should take into account in reaching its decision.' While the committee said it is not possible to predict how different threshold changes would impact net migration, it said lowering the amount to £24,000, for example, could mean an increase of around one to three percent of projected future net migration. The report added: 'Determining the MIR threshold involves striking a balance between economic wellbeing and family life. 'Whilst a lower threshold would favour family life and entail a higher net fiscal cost to the taxpayer, a higher threshold (below a certain level) would favour economic wellbeing. 'But a higher number of families would experience negative impacts relating to financial pressures, prolonged separation, relationships, adults' mental health and children's mental health and education.' The committee advised against raising the threshold for families with children as despite them facing higher living costs, the impacts on family life appear 'particularly significant' for children. It also recommended keeping the income amount required the same across all regions of the UK. The MAC also said their review was 'greatly hindered' by insufficient data and urged for better data collection by the Home Office on characteristics of each applicant to be linked to outcomes to inform further policy decisions. Reacting to the recommendations, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the report shows that raising the salary threshold will drive migration numbers down and urged for the threshold to be increased to £38,000. 'Migration figures remain far too high. It's time to end ECHR obstruction, raise the salary thresholds, and take back control of who comes into this country,' he said. 'As Kemi and I said on Friday, if the ECHR stops us from setting our own visa rules, from deporting foreign criminals or from putting Britain's interests first, then we should leave the ECHR.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'The Home Secretary commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to undertake a review. 'We are now considering its findings and will respond in due course. More broadly, the government has already committed to legislate to clarify the application of Article 8 of the ECHR for applicants, caseworkers and the courts.'
