FlyTheNest

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 7:06 am**

Morning all.

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 7:34 am**

It's Groundhog May

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 7:41 am**

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... tudy-shows" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is completely the opposite of one the main (non)justifications of wasting three quarters of a billion on a name change.

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 7:55 am**

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... t-in-1990s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 8:16 am**

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... t-in-1990s

I love the way the guy from the council turns an embarrassing faux pas into a positive by praising local knowledge and skill in creating such a convincing fake and the need to record modern recreations to aid future generations!

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 9:24 am**

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ad9f ... 0c95b1919e" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Care homes could profit from locking up vulnerable patients under new law

The government has said that the proposals will “reform a broken system”

Vulnerable people will be detained for years and care home managers who could profit will be involved in the decisions, charities and campaigners warn.

Rushed government reforms designed to save money embed a “worrying conflict of interest” at the heart of rulings on depriving people with dementia, learning disabilities and mental illness of their liberty, it is feared.

In a letter to The Times, 13 charities and rights groups say that hundreds of thousands of people risk “exploitation and abuse” by changes tripling the time they can be detained without review.

Since a Supreme Court decision in 2014, anyone under continuous supervision who would not be allowed to walk out of the door of a hospital or care home must have such restrictions approved under what are known as Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, or Dols. However, approvals take more than four months on average and 48,000 people wait more than a year for a decision from two independent assessors, who are appointed by local councils.

Ministers estimate that clearing the backlog under existing law would cost £2 billion and have put forward a streamlined system in a Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill, which is being considered by the House of Commons.

Charities including Mind, the National Autistic Society and the Alzheimer’s Society say that their concerns have been ignored. The bill would create “an entirely unfit new system of protection”, they warn in today’s letter.

“Alarmingly, the bill proposes to triple the time that people can be deprived of their liberty without review (from one to three years),” they say. “The bill also creates a worrying conflict of interest for care home managers, giving them a greater role in the assessment process.”

Care home managers would have more responsibility for arranging key assessments and deciding whether residents can access advocacy. Ministers say that local authorities would have the final say. Independent hospitals could approve Dols themselves.

About half of 227,000 Dols approved each year are for people with dementia. Jeremy Hughes, head of the Alzheimer’s Society, said: “Under the proposals people with dementia find themselves in a worrying situation, unable to comment [honestly] on the quality of the care they receive, because care home managers would be in charge of asking residents about their care. This . . . creates a potential conflict of interest.”

Sam Grant, of Liberty, said: “This bill is in essence a cost-cutting exercise, which removes vital safeguards necessary to ensure people, who for whatever reason might lack capacity to make decisions, are not abused, mistreated or ignored. The government must fix the bill, or put hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people at risk.”

Barbara Keeley, shadow minister for mental health, said: “This government is prepared to put the interests of private care providers making millions from detaining vulnerable people ahead of the human rights of those being detained.”

The Department for Health and Social Care said: “Our bill will reform a broken system and ensure vulnerable people can more quickly access legal protections. We have listened carefully to feedback from stakeholders and parliamentarians and made amendments, including excluding care home managers from granting authorisations or completing assessments. This will ensure all applications are independently scrutinised

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 9:41 am**

Willow904 wrote:
HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... t-in-1990s
I love the way the guy from the council turns an embarrassing faux pas into a positive by praising local knowledge and skill in creating such a convincing fake and the need to record modern recreations to aid future generations!

Megalithic.co.uk ('the mobile megalith portal')
has added it
https://m.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=50954" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
but perhaps more impressively, also includes:
https://m.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=34237" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(Stonehenge at the Babbacombe model village)

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 9:45 am**

I wonder if they had the same reaction when they'd just finished Stonehenge.

Bloody druids and these new-fangled fake stone circles.

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 10:06 am**

Recent favourites

Daily Express - Monday Jan 21st

This comes as the Queen could be forced to intervene in the Brexit row if Parliament fails to reach a solution to the current deadlock, according to top lawyer Sir Stephen Laws. The Government’s former constitutional lawyer has warned that MPs who try and delay or stop Brexit are risking breaking their sacred duty not to involve the Queen in politics.

Telegraph - Monday Jan 21st

The Queen could be asked to block backbench legislation which could frustrate Theresa May's Brexit plans. A senior Government minister confirmed that one option was for the Queen to be asked not to give royal assent to any backbench legislation drawn up by Tory MPs Dominic Grieve or Nick Boles which is given debating time.

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 10:18 am**

Good-morning, everyone

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 10:22 am**

@adam
those aren't spoofs are they

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 10:26 am**

citizenJA wrote:@adam
those aren't spoofs are they

Sadly not.

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 10:42 am**

Brexit is a mess – what would Yes Minister’s Sir Humphrey do?
Jonathan Lynn

I emailed my old friend and asked what he would do if he were still head of the civil service. Here is his reply
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... s-minister" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brilliant

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 10:48 am**

This is quite a convincing argument from Mark Elliot on why the government wouldn't be able to instruct the Queen to not give royal assent to any backbench legislation. Although the government advise the Queen on such matters, the advice is supposed to be about areas where it might not be clear what she should do. As there is a clear convention that the Queen provides royal assent to all legislation passed by parliament, there is no grounds for advice:

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2019/0 ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can the Government veto legislation by advising the Queen to withhold royal assent?

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 11:23 am**

Willow904 wrote:This is quite a convincing argument from Mark Elliot on why the government wouldn't be able to instruct the Queen to not give royal assent to any backbench legislation. Although the government advise the Queen on such matters, the advice is supposed to be about areas where it might not be clear what she should do. As there is a clear convention that the Queen provides royal assent to all legislation passed by parliament, there is no grounds for advice:

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2019/0 ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Can the Government veto legislation by advising the Queen to withhold royal assent?

Thank you, Willow, for flagging this.
I don't understand how anyone can seriously propose possible action causing greater degradation of democratic accountability.

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 12:23 pm**

Getting rid of the monarchy to own the libs

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 2:05 pm**

I'm pretty sure I heard something on the news about the National Crime Agency going to an emergency status or something like it in the event of a No deal Brexit.

I'm still struggling to understand the extremists who are cheering on a No deal Brexit - is it a case of "yeah things will be awful for a few months/years but it'll work out in the end"?

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 2:10 pm**

RogerOThornhill wrote:I'm pretty sure I heard something on the news about the National Crime Agency going to an emergency status or something like it in the event of a No deal Brexit.

I'm still struggling to understand the extremists who are cheering on a No deal Brexit - is it a case of "yeah things will be awful for a few months/years but it'll work out in the end"?

Yeah, plus the "WE STOOD ALONE DURING THE WAR" mythology that is so pervasive amongst a certain type.

And not forgetting that some of its most fervent proponents hope to make a killing out of the chaos.

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 2:54 pm**

RogerOThornhill wrote:I'm pretty sure I heard something on the news about the National Crime Agency going to an emergency status or something like it in the event of a No deal Brexit.

I'm still struggling to understand the extremists who are cheering on a No deal Brexit - is it a case of "yeah things will be awful for a few months/years but it'll work out in the end"?

This from John Harris , after a visit to Portsmouth, is good . If not more than a little scary.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... eal-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 3:01 pm**

Harris doing his "racism safari" act again I see.

Its only really "scary" if you think he interviewed a representative cross section of people, rather than finding what he wanted to find. He has past form on this btw.

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 3:40 pm**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Harris doing his "racism safari" act again I see.

Its only really "scary" if you think he interviewed a representative cross section of people, rather than finding what he wanted to find. He has past form on this btw.

Okay.... It was in answer to Roger's question but -

What I found interesting was his attempt to see why people might be fine with 'no deal' - did they understand what that meant. Also the link between the initial vote for leaving the EU ( which has been described as a protest against the conditions in the UK ) and the belligerent 'Let's get on with it' and 'bollocks to the EU' chants of the pro Brexit demonstrators outside Westminster.

Incidentally, I read you quoting my "scary" like that as sneering. That couldn't possibly be the case could it ?
The article makes plain that it was about a pro no deal brexit meeting in Weatherspoon's. Not a cross section no - apart from some Liberals heckling...

excerpts from the guardian piece below :

'Last Thursday, the BBC’s Question Time was broadcast from Derby, where an endorsement for no deal from the writer Isabel Oakeshott triggered mass whoops and cheers, and yet another explosion of Brexit noise on Twitter. The truth that brief moment underlined is obvious: whatever the warnings from politicians, many people currently support the nightmarish prospect of the UK leaving the EU without any formal agreement.

The extent to which that belief is a matter of deep conviction is a moot point: I wrote about Brexit boredom last week, and it seems pretty clear that many people say they would opt for no deal if pushed, but do so in the midst of disconnection and bafflement. Nonetheless, an inconvenient truth remains. Whereas I have never heard any member of the public make the case for what politicians call Norway plus, and belief in a second referendum still seems to be largely the preserve of a certain kind of middle-class person, no deal is the position that scores of people have recently expressed to me without prompting: “We should just get out”; “We have to leave, now”; “Why can’t we just walk away?”

At its heart, I suppose, is a terrible logic, combined with a certain stubborn ignorance, which results in an insistence that the only thing that matches what millions of people thought they were voting for in 2016 is a clean break. Some support for no deal closely echoes the specious stuff repeatedly uttered by leading Brexiteers, about the EU needing Britain more than we need them, a country set free from Brussels diktats and trading again with its former colonies. But the most fascinating element of popular no-dealism is altogether more complicated, and built on a defiant rejection of all the warnings about falling off a cliff edge, so passionate that the refusal of advice feels more relevant to what people think than what the most reckless kind of Brexit actually might entail. In that sense, supporting no deal amounts to the same performative “fuck you” that defined a reasonable share of the original vote for leave.

Finally, there are questions about no-dealism that are bound up with England, and national traits that go back centuries. One is a tendency to indulge in futile, inexplicable gestures, evident in everything from 18th-century riots to 1970s punk rock, and perfectly summed up in a sentiment mewled by a young man named Johnny Rotten, in the midst of a hit single titled Anarchy in the UK: “Don’t know what I want, but I know how to get it.” These things explode from time to time, but what never seems to go away is the self-image of an island nation, the seductive myth of Britain standing alone, and an eternally mistrustful attitude to the EU, now intensified by the bloodless functionaries – Tusk, Barnier, Juncker – apparently calling the shots on Brexit.

At the moment, mainstream politics operates on the understanding that if no deal came to pass, queues of lorries and thinly stocked shops would spark no end of public outrage, and cause huge political damage to the Conservative party. But if the current procedural complexities surrounding Brexit eventually give way to much starker realities of what the EU calls a “disorderly withdrawal”, I would not be so sure. Somewhere between the Wetherspoons spirit, a mass desire to simply get Brexit over with and the mirage of a wronged country fighting for survival, there might lie the key to why no-dealism is suddenly proving more popular than some people would like to imagine. A no-deal exit would confirm that politics has entered the realms of the darkly surreal, and that 23 June 2016 was only the start.'

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 4:08 pm**

Just another thing - there is now significant evidence that a non-negligible number of those who tell pollsters that they favour "no deal" think it actually means "things carry on as they are now" or even "no deal means that we stay in the EU". Some may see that as a failure of our media class to properly explain stuff - I could not possibly comment

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 4:12 pm**

source ? Please. I'm interested, where can I go to read more ? I don't do Twitters though.

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 4:29 pm**

Lost Soul wrote:source ? Please. I'm interested, where can I go to read more ? I don't do Twitters though.

It's moderately controversial. Sky News did a twitter poll that said 26% thought no deal meant no change. One polling org said it was only 1%, sorry don't know which one.
This says it's 4%.
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/new-report-reveals ... ms.twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Polls show just 4% think that no deal means a reversion to the status quo ante.

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 4:31 pm**

Austerity, what austerity? Balancing the books is so 2015.

A research paper by the Institute for Government reports that numbers in the civil service have now risen to levels not seen since the second world war

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 4:42 pm**

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/new-report-reveals ... ms.twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also from this report

MPs much more worried about no-deal Brexit than voters generally

Have we finally reached the stage where most MPs actually understand what leaving the EU entails?
If only they'd worried about it more before voting for the EUref to happen, or before voting to trigger A50..................

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 4:51 pm**

gilsey wrote:
Lost Soul wrote:source ? Please. I'm interested, where can I go to read more ? I don't do Twitters though.
It's moderately controversial. Sky News did a twitter poll that said 26% thought no deal meant no change. One polling org said it was only 1%, sorry don't know which one.
This says it's 4%.
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/new-report-reveals ... ms.twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Polls show just 4% think that no deal means a reversion to the status quo ante.

Thanks for that, however even 4% is non-negligible - as remain campaigners in 2016 know only too well.

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 4:52 pm**

gilsey wrote:http://ukandeu.ac.uk/new-report-reveals ... ms.twitter

Also from this report
MPs much more worried about no-deal Brexit than voters generally
Have we finally reached the stage where most MPs actually understand what leaving the EU entails?
If only they'd worried about it more before voting for the EUref to happen, or before voting to trigger A50..................

ritual and open bar = a series of bad voting decisions

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 4:54 pm**

I can well believe there are millions of people thinking 'no deal' Brexit means the UK remains in the EU

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 4:54 pm**

It seems ridiculous that this may seem like an old fashioned idea, but it really doesn't matter how many people say they favour or don't mind "no deal" or why. MPs have a responsibility to prevent it as it would not be in the country's interests. The idea that Theresa May is putting us in a position where we may crash out of the EU with no deal is somehow democracy in action, that she is merely delivering on the "will of the people" is a nonsense. As has often been pointed out, no one has voted to be worse off, so any MP who knowingly follows a course of action that places jobs and food security at risk is not fulfilling some kind of democratic mandate. People voted leave on the understanding it was a viable option - not on the understanding that it would be pursued at any cost. If this is not a given, then our representative democracy is well and truly dead. Let us fervently hope that is not the case...

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 4:54 pm**

gilsey wrote:
Lost Soul wrote:source ? Please. I'm interested, where can I go to read more ? I don't do Twitters though.
It's moderately controversial. Sky News did a twitter poll that said 26% thought no deal meant no change. One polling org said it was only 1%, sorry don't know which one.
This says it's 4%.
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/new-report-reveals ... ms.twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Polls show just 4% think that no deal means a reversion to the status quo ante.

Thank you. I'm going in...

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 4:59 pm**

Another surprising thing, noted here before I'm pretty sure, is that people don't realise that No Deal means a hard border in Ireland and drives a coach and unicorns through the Good Friday Agreement.

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 5:04 pm**

Madness joy chaos! Bexiteer businessman relocates to Singapore (5,5).

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 5:06 pm**

Willow904 wrote:It seems ridiculous that this may seem like an old fashioned idea, but it really doesn't matter how many people say they favour or don't mind "no deal" or why. MPs have a responsibility to prevent it as it would not be in the country's interests. The idea that Theresa May is putting us in a position where we may crash out of the EU with no deal is somehow democracy in action, that she is merely delivering on the "will of the people" is a nonsense. As has often been pointed out, no one has voted to be worse off, so any MP who knowingly follows a course of action that places jobs and food security at risk is not fulfilling some kind of democratic mandate. People voted leave on the understanding it was a viable option - not on the understanding that it would be pursued at any cost. If this is not a given, then our representative democracy is well and truly dead. Let us fervently hope that is not the case...

I completely agree

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 5:16 pm**

Willow904 wrote:---
People voted leave on the understanding it was a viable option - not on the understanding that it would be pursued at any cost. If this is not a given, then our representative democracy is well and truly dead. Let us fervently hope that is not the case...

(cJA edit)

This is the most important thing, in my opinion. The referendum result is used in an attempt to legitimise bad legislation and policy.

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 5:19 pm**

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Another surprising thing, noted here before I'm pretty sure, is that people don't realise that No Deal means a hard border in Ireland and drives a coach and unicorns through the Good Friday Agreement.

It's against the law
A UK referendum can't override the UK's international obligations as a signatory of the GFA

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 5:23 pm**

Willow904 wrote:It seems ridiculous that this may seem like an old fashioned idea, but it really doesn't matter how many people say they favour or don't mind "no deal" or why. MPs have a responsibility to prevent it as it would not be in the country's interests. The idea that Theresa May is putting us in a position where we may crash out of the EU with no deal is somehow democracy in action, that she is merely delivering on the "will of the people" is a nonsense. As has often been pointed out, no one has voted to be worse off, so any MP who knowingly follows a course of action that places jobs and food security at risk is not fulfilling some kind of democratic mandate. People voted leave on the understanding it was a viable option - not on the understanding that it would be pursued at any cost. If this is not a given, then our representative democracy is well and truly dead. Let us fervently hope that is not the case...

Yes. Very well put!

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 5:25 pm**

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Madness joy chaos! Bexiteer businessman relocates to Singapore (5,5).

Twitter doesn't seem too impressed by his decision...

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 5:52 pm**

Fosh
‏@foshtown
21 minutes ago

#CurseDyson

May you go to your grave, twisted with rage and resentment that nobody is ever, ever, ever going to say:

"I'm away to Dyson the front room"

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 6:02 pm**

Incidentally I don't buy Dyson's "oh, we're a global company now" line to excuse him moving the HO abroad.

I looked at the last annual report of the company I worked for - I knew that they'd sold the UK operation that I worked for after I left; and now UK sales account for a massive...er...1.7% of the total. And yet they're still based in London.

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 6:59 pm**

The damage already done with Brexit is incalculable
situation is impossible

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 7:08 pm**

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Madness joy chaos! Bexiteer businessman relocates to Singapore (5,5).

Yeah what a man.

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 7:30 pm**

More home truths about No deal Brexit from Ivan Rogers.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And just to be clear...Foster is the Europe Editor of those bunch of whiny Remoaners...the Daily Telegraph.

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 7:35 pm**

Farage ally said black men are violent due to high testosterone

Catherine Blaiklock, who co-founded new pro-Brexit party, warned of ‘Muslim enclaves’

A former Ukip activist who is partnering with Nigel Farage in launching a new pro-Brexit political party has argued crime and fatherlessness among black men are due to high testosterone levels, and suggested their lower academic achievement could have a biological basis.

Catherine Blaiklock has also expressed concern about “Muslim enclaves” and said food banks should be abolished as they create a “dependent, obese population”.

The former parliamentary candidate and economics spokeswoman for Ukip, who has also argued too many women train as doctors, confirmed at the weekend she had applied to register Farage’s new party last month. (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... stosterone

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 7:47 pm**

Oh, and it's snowing...and I'm on church locking up this week which means I have to go out about 10pm...lovely.

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 8:01 pm**

...pro-European Conservatives underestimate the gravitational pull of Labour tribalism even on MPs who hate their leader. Pragmatic Conservatives cannot fathom why centre-left MPs who are probably going to be purged as “Blairite” heretics wouldn’t make common cause with like-minded folk on the centre-right whose party has also been captured by maniacs. Tory centrists are confused because they have no emotional equivalent to the “Labour-till-I-die” creed that prevents anti-Corbyn defections. Theresa May probably understands it better because she loves her party the way Labour MPs love theirs.

-Rafael Behr
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... emy-corbyn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

wow

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 8:05 pm**

Rafael Behr wrote:We’ll never see a cross-party deal on Brexit: tribalism runs too deep

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 8:13 pm**

Behr states that both the Tory and Labour leaders have put party above country
I disagree; I don't think the Labour leader puts party above people and country

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 8:34 pm**

Goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA

Posted: **Tue 22 Jan, 2019 9:24 pm**

FlyTheNest

Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Re: Tuesday 22nd January 2019