2014
12/08

Category:
David's Musings

COMMENTS:
No Comments »

Together

Readers will no doubt recall the Conservative slogan of ‘We’re all in this together‘; likewise Ed Miliband’s Conference Speech in September this year during which he, too, spoke about ‘Together‘ and ‘Together we can‘.

The New Statesman has published what I suppose is some form of publicity magazine for political studies supported by the University of Buckingham, one entitled: ‘Having your say: The role of democracy in Modern Britain’, with articles by, among others, Hilary Benn, Jenny Jones and Katie Ghose.

When reading these articles it is impossible to miss the continuing theme of ‘together’, an example of which is Hillary Benn’s article in which he ‘sells’ his party’s idea of mega-local authorities as bringing decision making closer to the people.

Of course the problem is that this ‘together’ does not bring those that matter – the people -together; all it does is bring ‘together’ those within the political circle; and at the same time increasing their power over the people.

It is ironic that in introducing the subject of democracy and people having their say, not one of the articles explains how people can have their say because not one of the articles actually defines what is the meaning of democracy in the first place.

*sigh*

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

2014
12/05

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:

COMMENTS:
Comments Closed

A slight hiatus

Blogging between now and Monday will be extremely limited, if not non-existent as I have a visitor from Co Durham.

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Lies, Damned Lies – and Statistics

Much is made, by Europhiles, of the fact that there are as many ‘Brits’ living in the EU as there are EU citizens living in the UK – of which this graphic is one used to illustrate that fact:

B3mlh-XIIAItnyw

The total land area of the EU is 1,707,642 square miles, which means that, if we accept the figures of the graphic above,there are 2.2million Brits living in a land area of 1,614,004 square miles - and 2.2million EU citizens living in  a land area of 93,638 square miles. (source)

Handy, statistics, aren’t they? But then statistics have never told the full story, have they?


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Referenda: Honesty/Truth/Integrity

An interesting and intriguing situation has arisen in Ireland in which the result of a referendum, held in 2012 about the rights of children, is being challenged on the basis of a Supreme Court judgement made two days before the referendum which stated that the government issued incorrect information in a leaflet.

This resultant Appeal which is currently being heard and background to this case can be read here, here, here and here. As has been noted in the first link, any referendum must be about upholding the rights of all of the electorate “to vote freely, to a fair and democratic process, to equality and to fair procedures”.

When a government is held to have ‘clearly and unequivocally’ breached the constitutional process governing the conduct of referendums and a government minister acknowledges that fact; yet the referendum is allowed to proceed, the question has to be asked: where is democracy?

Not that the Irish government is alone in ‘rigging’ a referendum; both Heath and Wilson lied to the British electorate on British membership of what has now become the European Union and allowed others to lie on their behalf.; yet allowed a referendum to proceed. Neither has anything changed; today we still have politicians lying on the same subject and allowing others so to do on their behalf. 

No doubt when the time comes for a referendum on ‘Brexit’, we too will be lied to – and, of course, all within the rules. Remember: In politics, a lie unanswered becomes truth within 24 hours.

Perhaps the reason the British people seem unable to accept wisdom when they hear it is because those voices get ‘drowned out’, especially today, by those of the ‘seen’ and ‘unseen’, both of whom govern this country. The most obvious example of that was undoubtedly Enoch Powell who was right on the subjects of Europe; the single currency; economic management; and multiculturalism too.

Until the people of this nation understand that our present system of democracy really is but a form of democratised dictatorship, so will we remain in the grip of wolves in sheep’s clothing.

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

2014
12/03

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:



COMMENTS:
Comments Closed

Road Improvements (2) – more bewta* from our PM

Continuing from the preceding article, we had a prime example of the Prime Minister  not being completely truthful during PMQs today.

He was asked a question by Stephen Brine, Conservative – Winchester (starts 01:03:30):

Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con):

As he may well remember, the Prime Minister experienced this summer the congestion regularly faced by my constituents at junction 9 of the M3 motorway. May I thank him on behalf of the people I represent for the comprehensive package of improvements announced by the Transport Secretary earlier this week? Does he share my view that my constituents can benefit from this kind of investment only because we have a taken the decisions to get our economy in a place that we can?

The Prime Minister:

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know about the importance of the M3 improvements that he mentions. The fact is that all these things—whether it be improving our road network, investing in our NHS, building new railway stations and electrifying railway lines—can be done only if we have a successful and growing economy, a long-term economic plan and a demonstration that the public finances are under control. With this Chancellor and with this Government, we have all of those things in place. That is why we have been able over the previous days to talk about improving our NHS, investing in our transport infrastructure, building the flood defences that this country needs and putting in place all the infrastructure—whether it be ports, airports or energy—that a modern economy needs in order to sustain a level of growth that can deliver the prosperity and security that the British people deserve.

If only the public at large were aware of the charade that is PMQs with its planted questions and evasive replies. As today’s PMQs progressed it became obvious that there was a deliberate ploy in play, led by Ed Miiband, to concentrate on what are perceived to be ‘Cameron’s broken promises. One can be forgiven for believing that there was an internal Labour competition with a prize for the most innovative/clever question on that one subject – but I digress.

Both Brine’s question (although doubtless he will be totally unaware) and Cameron’s reply (although he doubtless will be aware) were both incorrect in their reasoning. The road improvements in Brine’s constituency were not only because the Coalition has brought the economy to a place where these improvements can be carried out (which in itself is debatable); they are being carried out because they are so ‘mandated’ by the European Union through Regulation 1315/2013.

*BEWTA: Being economical with the actualité.


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Road Investment

With the announcement of a £15bn road improvement programme, political point scoring has lost no time in being carried out with Labour being reported stating this announcement is but a re-announcement and Shadow Transport Secretary Michael Dugher saying in a statement that not a shovel has been used in anger on our nation’s highways over the last four and a half years. Labour are correct on the re-announcement point (although this accusation is a tad rich coming from a party that made re-announcements into an art form – but I digress) and one would suggest that at least a metaphorical shovel has been used. One could also be forgiven for pointing out to Michael Durgher that had his party been in government progress would have been no quicker.

Readers will be aware that transport, in all its forms, is an EU competence and as such means that no national government can act without first having ‘cleared’ its intentions with the Commission and that what is intended conforms with any ‘guidelines’, ‘frameworks’ and/or regulation/directive.

When considering today’s announcement it is also necessary to realise that what we are told on any subject is not necessarily the entire truth. When governments of any hue announce something, invariably the ‘elephant in the room’ fails to be mentioned  and this latest announcement is no exception. This £15bn programme was first announced in 2013 the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Investing in Britain’s Future) an announcement which stated that the government would be: investing £15.1 billion in our strategic roads by 2021 to counter the
effects of past under-investment (page 5, here). Having said that, the government is to all intents and purposes presenting this investment as a new announcement; something along with which the media (with one or two exceptions) appears to be going.

As with HS2, the devil is in the detail and, as with HS2, it is necessary to consider TEN-T , the EU arm for transport whose raison d’etrê is to oversee a transport network connecting the European Union, North to South and East to West.

At this juncture it is worth considering the background of TEN-T and the parliament website has a handy reference document on the subject (google TEN-T Standard Note 478 and click first listing – opens as a pdf). It will be seen that originally TEN-T operated on ‘guidelines’ and that draft legislation would have made them compulsory. It is worth repeating a section from page 10 of Standard Note 478:

In October 2011 the Commission published a draft Regulation on TEN-T, which would
involve the repeal of the Guidelines (see section 2, above).23 The material effect of this
change would be to move from guidelines which promote the development of the network to
a Regulation which would define a long-term strategy up to 2050 and mandate action by
Member States. In particular, it would require Member States to complete a ‘Core Network’
by the end of 2030 and a ‘Comprehensive Network’ by 2050. The Commission hopes that
this draft Regulation will be in place by 2013.

This marks a significant change in the TEN-T programme by introducing an element of
compulsion. In other words, Member States would be compelled to build and upgrade
transport infrastructure on the core and comprehensive networks by the date indicated.
There would also be duties to upgrade infrastructure to certain standards.

As noted in this Standard, Note the then Transport Minister and the House of Commons were against the arbitrary setting of dates for both core and comprehensive networks – to no avail.

All member states must contribute to the development of Trans European Networks. National networks should be developed into one European network and for transport this has been laid down in Regulation 1315/2013.  This divides the trans-European transport network into two parts, a comprehensive network and a core network with the requirements that comprehensive networks must be met by 2050 and core networks by 2030. The Regulation concerning the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) , which is referred to in the Standard  Note, can be found here, for those interested. How building the Core Networks and implementing the CEF will be carried out is explained in this handy Communication from the Commission.

What, I hear new readers ask, are core and comprehensive networks? The EU has 9 Core Networks of which the one that affects the United Kingdom is the North Sea – Mediterranean. Comprehensive networks can best be described as main feeder roads into a core  network from ‘regions’, such as the A303 or the A47. (or as Siim Kallas, Transport Commissioner at the time, explained in May 2013: The new core TEN-T network will be supported by a comprehensive network of routes, feeding into the core network at regional and national level. This will largely be financed by Member States, with some EU transport and regional funding possibilities). If you look at the map in section 2.4 here, all will be explained where comprehensive road networks are concerned. While on the subject of roads, SABRE has a list of ‘TEN-T roads’ (and yes, they are no longer British roads but TEN-T roads).

The Daily Telegraph has an article dealing with this latest government announcement but can’t help itself indulging in trivial aspects to the loss of the ‘news behind the news’. To save readers the trivia, I reproduce a graphic from said article:

Roads-Desktop-460_3123210c

(click to enlarge)

When we ‘overlay’ the information contained on the DfT website onto the map from the ’section 2.4 map’ mentioned above, hey presto: the invisible elephant in the room magically appears.

With the passing of the two Regulations mentioned above, it is no wonder first mention of this road bonanza was made in 2013; and bearing in mind the extent of all the work involved, it becomes easy to understand the timing of today’s announcement – this will take decades to put into place.

To summarise, this latest roads announcement is not as a result of our governments ‘long term economic plan’ (regardless what George Osborne or anyone else would have us believe) but rather another instance of our pretend government fulfilling the requirements of our true government to which it is beholden.

Update: I see the PoliticsHome link has been changed to cater for a statement from the Prime Minister, who says the expenditure is only possible as the Coalition have managed to get the nation’s finances under control. Having picked myself up from the floor, to which I fell in uncontrollable laughter, I have to say that where control over road building is concerned, it lies not with the UK and her finances, but with Brussels who have ‘mandated’ said expenditure.

Update #2: Courtesy of an email contact I see that the A47  is covered by the Eastern Daily Press and I am informed that the print edition had it spread across the front page and pages 2&3. The prize photo of those that were forwarded to me must be this one:

unnamed

Do note that our provincial press appear to be as clueless as do the MSM – I mean: Will the other parties follow suit? FHS!

Ed. note: The original article with this title was removed as some errors were spotted, luckily before they were picked-up elsewhere.

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Peers and Polls

The Mail reports that 11 Peers gave £14million prior to their being elevated to the House of Lords, with Transparency International subsequently warning that this suggested peerages could be bought. This ‘finding’ then prompted the former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life  to say a few words about the integrity of something we do not have.

This page from the Parliament website explains how one ‘gets ermine’ – and while peerages can be handed out on the whim of party leaders it can only make the work of the House of Lords Appointments Commission even more difficult in their bid to ensure propriety.

Then of course funding for this exercise in mutual appreciation comes from the taxpayer, which begs the question of where is the say/agreement of the taxpayer? Should not he who pays the piper call the tune?

On the subject of having a say, my eye was caught by this rather amusing study about why people vote the way they do, one which appeared on the BBC website under the heading of: Poll the other one.

When you read that in a recent survey 15% of people said they were either for or against the Monetary Control Bill (which does not exist) one can but wonder why we have opinion polls and pay such slavish attention to their findings – or, come to that, why we have an electorate.

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Engagement

Readers will know that I have written to my Member of Parliament about this country’s membership of the European Union and in so doing questioning statements he has made. Likewise, following public statements made by Laura Sandys and Nick Clegg they too have been contacted, questioning their statements that have recently appeared in the media.

Needless to say, I hold out little hope that a response will be received from Sandys or Clegg; and if one is received it will no doubt be a repetition of parliamentary convention that I am not a constituent of theirs, or they will copy the response of David Cameron and provide two pages of A4 explaining how, if I want ‘change’, I should be voting for their respective parties.

We, who are interested in politics, can complain among ourselves and comment on blog articles as often as we like – but that, actually, accomplishes little I would suggest.

However, never one to give up easily, I have also written to Ed Miliband along similar lines to David Cameron – so let us see what response that provides. As will be seen in the email – reproduced below – I have made the point that politicians are continually bleating about the need to engage with the electorate – which never seems to happen – so I, as a member of the electorate, am attempting to engage with them; and that consequently I hope that I will receive a response.

 

Dear Mr. Miliband,

Much is made of the disconnect between the electorate and politicians and this is no doubt due to the lack of honesty and the lack of truth in what politicians tell the electorate; something that must also reflect on why the electorate question the integrity of our politicians.

I write not as a constituent of yours, but as a member of the electorate to whom you appeal in your efforts to become our country’s next prime minister. I am also well aware of the parliamentary convention whereby Members of Parliament maintain they can only respond to constituents on matters raised by them; however, from time to time politicians make statements through the media – and via the internet – which are, in effect, directed to the electorate at large and thus are liable to question by any member of the electorate.

In this regard I wish to concentrate on the question of the UK’s membership of the European Union.

In January 2013 David Cameron gave a speech in which he said:

“How can we sensibly answer the question of ‘in or out’ without being able to answer the most basic question: what is it that we are choosing to be ‘in or out’ of.”

When considering the mountain of words that have been uttered or written by anyone, be they of the pro-EU or anti-EU factions, never has anything so true been uttered than those words above.

How can the British electorate make an informed decision in respect of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union – in any referendum that is granted or when politicians discuss this subject – when the true facts have been hidden from them; and I contend, deliberately so it would seem.

You have criticised David Cameron for his lack of honesty and truth on the question of this country’s membership of the European Union; and, regrettably, I have to suggest the same criticism can be leveled at you.

You made a number of points in your speech at the London Business School in March this year and I wish to use this opportunity to take you to task on some of them.

You stated that almost almost half of all overseas investment in the UK comes from within the EU, directly providing 3.5 million jobs. In respect of the number of jobs, on what is this statement based? Are you ‘parroting’ the remarks of Nick Clegg on the BBC’s Today programme of 30th October 2011; or the remarks of Stephen Byers and Tony Blair in the year 2000; or in the same year the report issued by the South Bank University; or the figure of 3.5 million mentioned during a BIS debate in the HoC about overseas investment, based on an analysis apparently conducted in 2006; or the BIS report from February 2011 on the UK Response to the European Commission Consultation on the Single Market Act; or the report in 2000 by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research in which it stated that: “detailed estimates from input-output tables suggest that up to 3.2 million jobs are now associated directly with exports of goods and services to other EU countries  and which went on to say that: “there is no reason to suppose that many of these[jobs], if any, would be lost permanently if Britain were to leave the EU; or, finally, as recent as June this year when Danny Alexander spoke in Washington and stated that 3.3 million jobs are connected to this country’s continued membership of the European Union?

There has always been a mantra put forward by politicians in favour of EU membership that the United Kingdom has to be ”in the EU to trade with the EU’ – a mantra that is palpably false, but one that like David Cameron you perpetuate. Yes, without doubt there are British jobs linked to trade and services with the other 27 members of the EU, but these jobs are not linked to our membership of the EU as they arise from our membership of the Single Market. You know as well as I – or you should do – that it is possible to be fully functional  participants in the Singe Market without being members of the EU, something which can be done by applying to re-join EFTA and remaining in the EEA.

David Cameron has ‘rubbished’ what is now called the ‘Norway Option’; something with which you appear to agree with your insistence that we have to remain in the EU in order to ‘have influence’. Condemning Norway to ‘government by fax’, having ‘no say’ in decision making and thus not being at the ‘top table’ is pure hogwash.

I am forced to ask where is the honesty, truth – coupled with your integrity – in denying that where the World Trade Organisation is concerned we all know that, within the EU, trade policy is an exclusive competence of the commission; subsequently we also know that in dealing with the WTO the framework for negotiations is decided at EU level by consensus and we are then represented at the WTO ‘top table’ by the European Commission.

The WTO situation is not unique, take for example  the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, known as WP.29 and held under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Council Europe where our interests are once again represented by the European Commission. Or take the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (on which Norway again has her own seat) which jointly manages the fisheries in the region,where the UK interest is represented by the European Commission and where we are not even parties to the enabling treaty, the EU having taken over our seat.

On both bodies Norway has a voice in the formulation of standards and decisions which are then handed down, in the form of dual international quasi-legislation for implementation by governments and trade blocs.

Where the setting of global standards is concerned, Codex is the ‘top table’ for food standards’ and there are many more: the FAO based in Rome; The OECD based in Paris; the ICAO based in Montreal; the BIS based in Basel; and the UNFCCC based in Bonn.

The point has to be made that it is from these dual international quasi-legisation that the majority of the bulk of Single Market regulation originates, making the EU no more than an intermediary player processing standards agreed elsewhere over which it has no control. At this point it becomes obvious that a seat at Brussels is not one at the top table.

Norway, as a member of the EEA, sits on over 200 EU Committees and from the EFTA website we learn that decision shaping is the phase of preparatory work undertaken by the European Commission to draw up new legislative proposals; that the Commission has an exclusive right of making proposals for new legislation but is obliged to call on advice from external sources when doing so; that the EEA Agreement contains provisions for input from the EEA EFTA side at various stages before new legislation is adopted; that input can take the form of participation by EEA EFTA experts in EC committees or the submission of EEA EFTA comments, as well as the adoption of resolutions in response to Commission initiatives; that as the initiator of EU legislation, the Commission is responsible for the preparatory work leading to draft proposals and that for this purpose, advice is often sought from experts of the Member States; that EEA EFTA States’ influence on the shaping of legislation is significant at this pre-pipeline stage, as the EEA Agreement provides for extensive participation by EEA EFTA experts in the preparatory work of the Commission; that in accordance with the EEA Agreement, the Commission shall informally seek advice from experts of the EEA EFTA States in the same way that it seeks advice from experts of the EU Member States.

In view of the above and that the UK would have far more influence on the global stage than we do as members of the European Union, I have to question your assertion that we are better off ‘in’ than ‘out’.

During this speech you said that Progressive politics must also be capable of responding to the concerns people have [around the benefits system]. Setting to one side the benefits system, the one thing you – and politicians in general – do not do is respond to the concerns of the people. If you had any such wish to respond to the concerns of the people you would immediately instigate a procedure whereby the electorate could question – and if necessary overturn – any decision that government, be that national or local, intended to implement.

You wrote, in your City AM article recently, that you are clear leaving the European Union would be a historic moment of economic self-harm: a betrayal of millions of people and businesses whose future depends on our EU membership. I would suggest to you that the greater betrayal of millions of people and businesses is the failure of politicians (with the exception of Owen Paterson) to be honest – and thus truthful – on the subject of this country’s membership of the European Union.

We hear repeatedly from politicians that there is a need for them to engage with the electorate – something that never seems to happen. As a result I am attempting to engage with politicians and therefore I  trust I may look forward to a response from you in due course,

David Phipps


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

2014
11/28

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:



COMMENTS:
Comments Closed

Financial Sovereignty

The measure of any country’s sovereignty is its ability to have total control over that which happens within the territory that its government controls – including its financial policies. It is well known that a Rothschild once said that control of a nations money by him means it matters not who forms the government.

The above is mentioned as today Vice-President Dombrovskis, Commissioner Moscovici and Commissioner Thyssen have presented the Autumn 2014 Economic Governance package to kick off the new European Semester. The Annual Growth Survey sets out general economic and social priorities for the EU for the coming year.

Mentioned within this ‘address’ is the Alert Mechanism Report (AMR) which provides a screening of all 28 EU economies for potential economic risks, providing an early warning on imbalances such as housing booms or banking crises. It indicates which countries warrant an in-depth review of their economies. For an explanation of what the AMR actually is, click here; in which you will find mention of the United Kingdom.

Still our politicians prattle on about sovereignty and how our parliament is sovereign?

I trust I am not the only one raising my eyes to heaven and praying: God, give me strength?

 

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

2014
11/28

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:





COMMENTS:
Comments Closed

‘That’ immigration speech

So, the CEO of UK plc has delivered his long awaited immigration speech and far be it for me to ‘go over’ it, I can but refer readers to the critique offered by Richard North.

I have been out all day so was unable to watch/listen to it and must hope that what he actually said was the same as the text linked to above. What follows are some random thoughts that occurred to me plus having read his speech, an observation or two.

It is no secret that Cameron has been ‘speaking’ to other EU Heads of State and thus sounding them out on what he wants – and in the process ‘squaring’ them in advance. He is also aware that, depending on that which he seeks, some aspects may involve treaty change – as intimated by Richard North’s piece.

This leads the cynic in me to suspect that, on the ‘immigration issue’ and following his ‘renegotiation’ we will be presented with a ‘package’ which he will hail as a success and thus recommend acceptance, come the promised referendum. As an example, cutting benefits will undoubted have an effect on EU immigration, cut the cost to the public purse – points which will form part of his ‘look what I have achieved’ ‘sales package’. There is also the point that if some of what he wishes could be done now, by leaving them until until the 2015 general election if gives him policy differences on which to play come campaign time.

Now let us turn to his speech and something that struck me as rather ironic, but which illustrates Cameron’s ‘weasel’ thinking thus allowing him to once again ‘hoodwink’ the British electorate. In his speech he said:

Our openness is part of who we are. [........] ……we also need to choose our language carefully. We must anchor the debate in fact not prejudice.

We must have no truck with those who [........] foment division, or as a surrogate for other agendas. We should distrust those who sell the snake oil of simple solutions.

If openness is part of who we are – and Cameron most definitely is part of who we are – he most certainly did not choose his language carefully when pontificating about the relationship Norway has with the EU, because he lied  and in lying he most certainly demonstrated his other agenda, namely to ensure he cemented his case for continual membership of the EU; he most definitely did not anchor that debate in fact – no doubt due to his prejudice against leaving; and where those points are concerned, he most definitely used snake oil.

Mind you, he has used snake oil before – witness that in his speech he says:

Judge me by my record in Europe.

I promised we would cut the EU budget – and we have.

I said I would veto a Treaty that was not in our interests, and I did.

He did neither of these, as witnessed by accusations I made in the dossier handed him and in response to which he failed to answer any of the accusations I levied.

Where openness/transparency/truth is concerned, we have just witness in David Cameron’s speech that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012