[wit]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Political correctness" is a term bandied about by people who refuse to accept that societal change has taken place, and that they are being left behind; their views an anachronism. <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

– Grasshopper, a few posts above

<br>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>Political correctness is the requirement of equal public respect for all ethnic groups, genders, lifestyles, sexual orientations, and so on.

Stated thus abstractly, it sounds innocuous to many modern ears.

In practice, however, it is a demanding requirement that calls for extensive purification of language, symbols and images, and ultimately of thoughts, feelings and social institutions.    

The specifics are infinitely varied.

Writers and public speakers must use "inclusive" language — for example, avoid using "man" and "he" to refer to human beings in general — and otherwise respect the choice of the terms by the more vocal spokesmen for protected groups.

Athletic teams must be renamed, illustrations in books and periodicals loaded with women and racial minorities in nontraditional roles..done away with as a "symbol of hate."

The casting of actors must be at odds with social stereotypes implicit in their roles, sometimes to the point of absurdity.

Such matters have become a matter of bureaucratic routine; committees meet, decide on guidelines, and incorporate their choices in style sheets and other authoritative standards.

Beyond terminology and symbolism, the requirement of equal respect restricts, sometimes severely, the substance of what can be said.

It would violate that requirement, for example, to entertain any explanation other than discrimination for group differences in income and position.

The possibility that differences in motivation or ability may play a role has become all but taboo in public, as have many other views, for example the view that there are legitimate social and moral objections to homosexuality.

Ultimately, "equal respect" requires the comprehensive restructuring of society so that protected groups in fact enjoy equal status.

Affirmative action and many other government policies therefore become sacrosanct….

PC is a natural consequence of the new position of liberalism as the sole respectable public philosophy, and the resulting power of liberal orthodoxy to define what is legitimate in public life.

It is also a manifestation of the intrinsic limitations of liberalism.

Political power is a practical necessity that can not be analyzed away, as liberalism requires, into something constructed out of men’s individual preferences.

It follows that liberalism is not a suitable foundation for a political order.

The current attempt to make it serve as one forces ruling elites to rely on various forms of manipulation, obfuscation and tyranny because of the insufficiency of the legitimate sources of authority available to them.

Political correctness is an example.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Jim Kalb – PC and the Crisis of Liberalism

http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/pinc/feb98/kalb-pc.html

<br>best regards

wit

[wit]

GH

For your query, a quick email to GRO Scotland has now yielded a spreadsheet with the following:

Edinburgh – 90.38% White British<br>(78.92% White Scottish, 11.46% Other White British)

<br>Glasgow –   90.77% White British<br>( 87.15% White Scottish, 3.62% Other White British)

best regards

wit

[wit]

Hi GH

This is the master site:

http://www.scrol.gov.uk/scrol/analyser/ … tempData4=

but it looks like a decision has been made not to allow the kind of drill-down you’ve requested: <br>push the info button and you get

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>This contains detailed information on religion and <br>ethnic group which is not available on the SCROL website <br>because of the risk that sensitive data of <br>this kind might be perceived as disclosive – even though<br> the measures taken by GROS prevent actual disclosure.

If there is a need for detailed information, please contact GROS <br>Customer Services on 0131 314 4254 or email customer@gro-scotland.gsi.gov.uk.<br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

<br>best regards

wit  

[wit]

Martin Luther King:<br>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.<br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Original 1829 guiding principles for the Metropolitan Police:<br>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>The police seek and preserve public favour, not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws; by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of society without regard to their race or social standing.<br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Both advocate a policy of "colour blind" ness –  ie individuals should be treated equally and judged only according to their actual behaviour.

Then:

UK, 1997 : New Labour elected, brings  political correctness into government.  

1999:  the  Macpherson report finds"institutional racism" in the Metropolitan Police in London and the government decides:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>Justice in a modern and diverse society must be "colour conscious", not "colour blind"<br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

‘racial’ incident is redefined to mean "any event which is said to be ‘racial’ by a witness or participant".  

Truth or falsehood as to whether it was in fact racial becomes a secondary consideration to the fact someone has used the "r" word.

Claiming a ‘racial’ aspect to an event becomes an easy way for those in a difficult spot to switch the focus away from themselves  –  burglars assert it against houseowners;  children against teachers/ care workers;  benefit claimants against benefit officers; employees with an eye to the half-chance against employers etc.     <br>   <br>The police get drawn into whole new areas of investigation.  <br> <br>Has it been a recipe for good community relations and racial harmony?

LM says not on his doorstep in Harrow.

GH and others say things look fine in Scotland.

<br>The 2001 census figures for Scotland class 95% of the population as combined White Scottish and Other White British:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/social/aescr-02.asp

<br>The 2001 census figures for Harrow class just 49.9% of the population as White British:

http://www.cre.gov.uk/research/statisti … 01pt1.html

<br>Reasonable to suppose that Harrow will have been impacted more by the change than Scotland, so that respective experiences will have been very different ?

Not sure what the various references to "b*****ks" add.

best regards

wit <br>

[wit]

LM,

the BNP don’t use the word "superior", but they do say there is a racial difference:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>This must not be taken to mean or imply that we believe that any particular ethnic group or race is ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’; we simply recognise that – as any biologist would be able to predict, and the new medical science of pharmacogenetics is now confirming – human populations which have undergone micro-evolutionary changes while being separated for many thousands of years have developed differences in many fields of endeavour, susceptibility to health problems, behavioural tendencies and such like……

……we believe that it is far more likely than not that the historically established tendency (and we do not claim that it is any more than that) of the peoples of Western Europe in general – and of these islands in particular – to create and sustain social and political structures in which individual freedom, equality before the law, private property and popular participation in decision-making, is to some extent at least genetically pre-determined.  

If this is the case, then the idea that it is possible to allow large numbers of people from very different ethnic groups and cultures to settle here, on the assumption that it is just something about our bracing sea air that tends to make us natural born democrats, is fatally flawed. Just as is the idea that we can export our enthusiasm for representative government to other peoples, either by example or by carpet-bombing their countries into giving up their penchant for strong government or theocracy. <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

http://www.bnp.org.uk/candidates2005/ma … /manf4.htm

 <br>The thing with the BNP is that they start with an idea that in itself is quite prevalent around the globe – securing a future for the indigenous people of a bit of land – but then extend it into reasoning that leaves most unconvinced.

<br>IMO, most of Europe , the Middle East, Africa, and Asia (from Tukey and India right across to China /Japan / Korea) is not that big on treating the non-indigenous the same way as the indigenous.   They’ll make visitors welcome and take money, but try to settle there and getting involved in local politics and the mood soon changes.

Paradoxically for those of a socialist/liberal mindset, it tends to be only in the "imperialist" or "settler" nations of North and South America, Australia, New Zealand  – plus some of the erstwhile imperial out-reachers like the UK and Holland – where an arriving immigrant can do that.

<br>However, IMO you do have a point in that most people in the UK are wary of  an attempt at a  certain creeping, non-violent cultural change that has come up again in the context of the cartoons and been fed by certain politicians.

This is the notion  – going some way beyond existing law – that it should now be forbidden to say anything that "insults" a religion.

In Denmark, this has arisen in the context of a cartoon.

In Australia, it has arisen in the context of  harassing bikini-wearing non-Muslims at the beach to cover-up.

In Holland, it arose in the murder of a filmmaker for making a documentary about violence against Muslim women.

In Britain, it arose with Salman Rushdie’s book.

This notion is that "respect" involves not just leaving folk alone to pursue their own non-harmful activities, but extends to a whole country observing certain codes of behaviour set down by a minority of adherents to a particular religion.    

In other words that in certain respects a religious group has a right not just to seek to persuade, but to dictate,  what the non-religious can do or say.  

The government’s attempt to move this notion into law was voted down in Parliament last week after much public debate, so I don’t think that opposition to the notion can be classed as minority thinking.

best regards

wit<br>

[wit]

hi steve

Euromillions requires you to select 5 numbers from <br>1 – 50 and a further two "star" numbers  from 1 – 9.    You need all 7 right to get the jackpot.

In mainland Europe its 2 Euros a pop, in the UK its £1.50 (meaning at current rates 2.2 Euros a pop) .

The rules are online only in French or Flemish (this being a Belgian lottery):

http://www.euromillions.be/show.aspx?cu … id=misc/al

You can win 12 ways from 5+2 numbers correct down to 2+1 numbers correct:

La part des mises dévolue aux gagnants d’un tirage du jeu « Euro Millions » et au « Fonds Booster », visée à l’alinéa 1er, est affectée selon les pourcentages mentionnés dans le tableau ci-dessous.

POURCENTAGE DE LA PART DES MISES (50%)<br>VISÉE A L’ALINÉA 1er<br> <br>RANG 1  (5+2)<br>22,00%<br> <br>RANG 2 ( 5+1)<br> 7,40%<br> <br>RANG 3 (5+0)<br> 2,10%<br> <br>RANG 4 (4+2)<br> 1,50%<br> <br>RANG 5 (4+1)<br> 1,00%<br> <br>RANG 6 (4+0)<br> 0,70%<br> <br>RANG 7 (3+2)<br> 1,00%<br> <br>RANG 8 (3+1)<br> 5,10%<br> <br>RANG 9 (2+2)<br> 4,40%<br> <br>RANG 10 (3+0)<br> 4,70%<br> <br>RANG 11 (1+2)<br> 10,10%<br> <br>RANG 12 (2+1)<br> 24,00%<br> <br>“FONDS  BOOSTERâ€ÂÂ

[wit]

Two sayings come to mind:

1.   Political beliefs: they start as a cause, turn into a career, and can end up as a racket.

What Hamas has going for it is that its still at stage 1; Fatah has been around long enough to hit stage 3.

2.  Might is right – not in any moral sense, but in the practical legal sense that if you have enough might, it ends up being legitimated, since the point of a government is that it has the monopoly on force within its society.    One reason for the talk of a  Palestinian Army.

Hamas’ approach to Fatah to form a government of national unity probably reflects its unease about facing the world on its own.  It needs a bit of cover and respectability.

Slogans of no negotiations and death to Israel sound very different coming from an underground militia engaged in a struggle against occupation, than they do coming from a government in power seeking international legitimacy and financial support.

How enthusiastic will the electorate that voted Hamas into power remain if eg the salaries due the 150,000 Palestinians on the public payroll (and which are basically funded by EU and US handouts) are not paid ?

best regards

wit

[wit]

corm

Scotland has a Parliament, Wales has a National Assembly:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

….The Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act both completed their passage through the UK Parliament in 1998 and the first elections to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales took place on 6 May 1999.  

Following a short transitional period, the devolution arrangements became fully operational on 1 July 1999.

Scotland now has a Parliament of 129 members elected every four years on the Additional Member System of proportional representation.

The Parliament operates broadly on the Westminster model, electing a First Minister who heads an Executive.

The Parliament and Executive have responsibility for most aspects of domestic, economic and social policy, while the United Kingdom Parliament retains control of foreign affairs, defence and national security, macro-economic and fiscal matters, employment and social security.

The Scottish Parliament is funded by a block grant from the UK Government but has the power to increase or decrease the basic rate of income tax set by the UK Parliament by up to three pence in the pound.<br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

http://www.dca.gov.uk/constitution/devolution/ukdev.htm

best regards

wit

[wit]

hi steve

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>Who’s trying to break up England? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The socialists in Westminster and in Brussels.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>How are they trying to do it?  <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

By breaking England up into bureaucratic regions each with a direct relationship with Brussels, not least nurturing an increasing direct funding relationship via the European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, etc as channels for public spending.

Wean folk off the idea that public funding comes from Westminster and you bypass the whole issue of national objections / referenda  –   "hey, it’s a natural process for our region to deal direct with Brussels.  What’s the point of this old-fashioned attachment to England?  Let’s just MOVE ON!."    

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>Where’s the evidence for this?<br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

From Westminster:

1.   The White Paper and the other Regional Assemblies material put out by the government since 2000:

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1139476

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1133514

From Brussels:

http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l60015.htm

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>What do they hope to get out of destroying England? <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

You’ll have to ask them, but socialism only works if its universal, so that folk can’t make comparisons and realise that things can be better under other systems.   Hence the closed nature of the USSR, China, North Korea, etc.

The aim seems to be establishing subservience to/dependence on  Brusssels.   The institutions of  Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc all recognised the need to destroy existing loyalties and senses of identity, and  the EU is no different in its socialist ambitions.<br> <br>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>And which English values will be undermined by splitting England into different regions?<br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

All the same ones being undermined by the creeping integration into Europe.  

The European Constitution is still being proceeded with in Brussels – they just ignore referendum results they don’t like and press on regardless.  

Same in Westminster.  Devolution vote for English regions shot down overwhelmingly (or, in the case of the North West and Yorkshire/Humberside, scrapped at the last-minute U-turn through fear of losing), yet Government Offices for those Regions go on regardless.<br>        <br>Splitting up England is just a part of achieving the Brussels dream for Europe.  

Ein Geld, Ein Volk, Ein Reich with a lot of little Laender.   The Union of European Socialist Regions.  

Laughable?  Folk will never go for it?  

Let’s put it on a creeping timetable across several years – surprising what folk can then be got to sleepwalk into.

Chip away – regional parliament here, regional police authority there, turn local regiments into regional ones, create an Eu criminal law, create an EU armed forces – build the overall from the smallest pieces possible.

How convincing is this, for example, from the Campaign for the English Regions:

http://www.cfer.org.uk/faqs.htm

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>Q. Why bother with this when it has hardly been a success in Scotland and Wales?

A. Devolution has been successful. The Parliament and the National Assembly have established themselves well in their respective countries – and in particular their moves to stand up for Scottish students and for Welsh farmers have been popular. <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

they’ll have you down as a malcontent and troublemaker, steve ;)

best regards

wit

[wit]

peaty,

even were the rulers of Israel (or Occupied Palestine, according to your perspective) so minded, Gaza is too close to nuke.

nor is it necessary: Israel/ Occupied Palestine already controls the water, electricity and flow of goods/persons in and out of Gaza.    

when the doors were shut on the suicide bombers, the Palestinians lost 100,000 jobs to Asian and African guest workers.

what’s happened in the election is down to the  ineptitude and corruption in the Palestinian Authority, causing lawlessness and impoverishment.  

When Arafat retrnued to Gaza in 1993, Palestinian per capita income was USD 3,000.  Today its USD 934, and 66% of that is foreign aid, mainly from the US and the EU –  another lever on the Palestinians.

Maybe the electorate has figured that if they install their own Taliban they can in a few years be "rescued" like Afghanistan and showered (for a while at least) with many more international dollars.

Problem with that thinking is that there is already a surfeit of control capability over them by those potential "rescuers".

that leaves the possibility of getting more funds from their neighbours by tapping into Islamicist funding by going for a 100% Islamist party rather than the multi-faith Fatah (most of whose spokespeople are actually Christian).    

but the neighbours have always been more liberal with words than with purse-strings.

its all very desperate: having now given those witha  vested interest in Middle East peace a shock, the best thing that could happen would be for them to clean up their act and go moderate, releasing the international purse strings, but who’s going to be the nation-builder?

best regards

wit  

[wit]

hi steve

i think you’re making my point for me – Acts of Union happen between nations.  

There’s no parallel in terms of  sense of unity – historical, cultural, economic, political, legal, social  – between Scotland and the East Midlands.

There is between Scotland and England, but England is what the socialist movers both in Westminster and Brussels want to break up and destroy: they hate with a passion the fact that England even exists: its values are anathema to the socialist mindset of dictatorialism and subservience to functionaries of "the State".  

You mention Bavaria.  That of course still has a different status within the Federal Democratic Republic, being a "Freistaat" rather than a "Land".  Historically, its been a distinct state with an autonomous diplomatic service , army, etc right up to Weimar.  Then it gave Hitler’s National Socialist movement its start and base, since when its remained more interested in dominating the federation than going for devolution.  

There’s no comparison between Bavaria and the East Midlands either (for one thing, BMW’s not in the East Midlands ;o) ).    

Back to Scotland – it has a Parliament, not an Assembly (like Wales and NI), and its very much more than just a difference in name.  Look at the Scotland Act – for one litmus test, Scotland can levy its own income tax:

http://www.dca.gov.uk/constitution/devolution/ukdev.htm

Scotland is most definitely a nation and a country – its not a separate state politically because it legislated not to be through the Act of Union.  

If pushed for a very rough political parallel, I’d maybe start comparing Scotland/UK with Quebec/Canada (with England being Ontario).

best regards

wit<br>

[wit]

GH,

I hope you’re right, but fear you’re wrong when I read Hamas’ Charter:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>Art 13.

..There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

Art 15

…..The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.

…It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Moslem generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

you can read the whole thing at

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

<br>So, how should one democracy respond to a non-negotiable demand by another for its destruction ?

best regards

wit

[wit]

hmmm….its a funny old world dave.

one of the big themes of the post-Iraq period was that Bush, Blair and the Ausssie John Howard  were all in trouble with angry electorates.

yet all three did go on to win re-election.

it’s the guys who opposed who are floundering – Schroder is out of office, Chirac is a lame duck.

you don’t have to be a fan of Bush/Blair/Howard to recognise that if you disagree with their approach you need to have an alternative to offer.

On Iran, the US hasn’t gone barging in but has left it to the UK, Germany and France to take the lead.  

Result?  Its looking like Iran will be a nuclear power within a year.

Mark Steyn in The Spectator:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Chirac warned that it would be a "grave error" for Iran and North Korea to ignore the international community.  

But, honestly, would it?

They know, even if Chirac doesn’t, that there is no "international community".

It would be a "grave error" to ignore America and (in the case of Iran) Israel, but the rest you can pretty much ignore with impunity.

Unless Chirac’s thretaening to call in US-led military action, they’ve got nothing to worry about……

2006 will mark the fifth anniversary of 9/11 and the third anniversary of the Iraq war.  It will not be a quiet year…..

Rumsfeld’s challenge:  you don’t like the way we do things?    Fine, what have you got?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

best regards

wit

[wit]

hi steve

obviously there’s the UK and GB and the Britsh Isles, but tell me that this map

http://europa.eu.int/abc/maps/members/uk_en.htm

doesn’t give a unity to Scotland which is absent from England.

What is a nation ?   "A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country."?

Is the UK a Nation or a Union (like the US) ?

Is GB a Nation or a Union?

Scotland, unlike England, has its own Parliament.  There are many things Scottish MPs can vote on for England that English MPs can’t vote on for Scotland.

Scotland has separate source of law (Roman Dutch) and a separate set of legislation to England & Wales, a separate Court system and a separate legal profession.

So, to a very large degree a separate legislature, judiciary, and executive.

Nationality by sporting groupings perhaps should not be so easily dismissed as a measure of how many people feel – otherwise we’d long ago have given into FIFA and had a GB team, or a 3 nations rugby tournament.

Scotland has it pretty sweet and is keen to keep it that way.

No wonder your countryman Mr Brown is so concerned that everyone salute the union flag and pretend its a national flag, even while his colleagues continue to sell out England to the EU ;o)

best regards

wit<br>

(Edited by wit at 5:24 pm on Jan. 27, 2006)

[wit]

Be grateful for small mercies – at least the socialist movers in Westminster and Brussels aren’t trying to destroy Scotland as a nation.

Wondered why Wales and Scotland got their own assemblies, but not England?

Wondered why Prescott was so keen to push regional assemblies in England even though the folk living there opposed them 6 to 1?

Wondered why Charles Clarke now wants to force the 43 police authorities south of the border into just 12?

Simply take their proposals and overlay the EU map of Britain on them.

That map recognises Scotland as a separate nation but for England sees only large regions.

Not regions determined by reference to any sense of history or identity, just for their "bureaucratic tidiness".

best regards

wit <br>

(Edited by wit at 1:06 pm on Jan. 27, 2006)

[wit]

Certain conditions are not to be regarded as impairments for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act, and among them are addiction to or dependency on alcohol (or indeed nicotine, or any other substance (other than in consequence of the substance being medically prescribed).

The issue though seems as much his lying about it as his actual drinking.

He’s certainly not making it easy for his colleagues – doesn’t he know that in British politics today you have to be in the Labour party to get away with lying?

Then again, his party is about breaking the mould of British politics….

best regards

wit

[wit]

i think the point may be that the issues are emerging in  the (locally born and locally raised) generation that follows the generation that arrived.

best regards

wit

[Author]

Posts