Chris Brand 06/01/2013

http://gfactor.blogspot.co.uk/

JOB-CREATIVE PAEDOHYSTERIA

Despite once-most-popular celebrity, Jimmy Savile (q.v.), being accepted (especially posthumously) to have been a prolific paedophile, paedohysteria continued on its merry way, with an 83-yr-old ex-BBC executive on 24-hr suicide watch in a private mental home while awaiting trial on allegations from the 1970s, and with a British 21-yr-old detained in California awaiting a possibly very long imprisonment for a week of ‘sexual contacts’ (in a motel) with a 13-yr girl with whom he had established a relationship in a year of happy internet chatter.

CASTE THE KEY TO RAPE

After weeks of peecee repression from MSM, it began to trickle out that Delhi arrests for the savage rapes and murder of a 23-yr-old medical student, had been taking place in an area where people had jobs such as cobbler and cleaner – i.e. an area of ‘Untouchables’/Dalits, a caste group famed for its high rape rate (though attacks were usually on fellow Dalits rather than nice middle class girls).

(By contrast, the sexual predations of middle class Indians consisted chiefly of groping on India’s conveniently overcrowded buses.)

The Indian government was evidently going to have its work cut out to oblige the angry ‘pink’ protesters wanting Westernization/modernization/feminization since quite a few Dalit males took the view they had the right to rape any woman not fully covered and chaperoned – as happened frequently in Dalit areas where there were few lavatories so women had to make their toilet in the woods.

In the Delhi case, a private bus driver had gone out with drunken chums and persuaded the medical student and her boyfriend (28, computer engineer) to board his tinted-windowed vehicle where, as he drove around, the attacks could take place in secret till, after two hours, the broken victims were unceremoniously dumped naked back on the street.

As the seldom-discussed horrific perils from Indian low life were made so dramatically clear, hundreds of Indian women promptly made application for gun licences (Guardian, 2 i). {American disarmers, please note!}

PAEDOHYSTERICS NOT AMUSED

Britain’s po-faced peecee criminal ‘justice’ system, busy investigating complaints from 589 gold-diggers ooops wymmin who had made complaints against top TV personnel in the aftermath of the late Jimmy Savile (q.v) coming under a cloud for industrial-scale ‘child abuse’ (of teenagers) got the New Year off to a hilarious start by solemnly arresting leading British comedian, Jim Davidson, 59, for unspecified sexual offences dating back 25 years (Daily Mail, 3 i).

Davidson was married to the delightful 17-yr-younger honey-blonde Michelle Cotton (his fifth wife); the late-in-the-day complainants were wymmin of 50. Davidson was best known for ‘courting controversy’ with jokes about ethnic minorities, homosexuals and the disabled; he had recently said, “The Savile witch hunt is going a bit silly now.” He had been about to appear on the ‘reality TV’ show ‘Celebrity Big Brother.’

Rather than investigate burglaries and robberies, cops – including half-a-dozen plain-clothed detectives (doubtless on salaries of £80Kpa – spent five hours searching Davidson’s £1M Georgian home in Hampshire and carting away boxes of ‘evidence’ in plastic bags and outsize brown envelopes. Other celebs arrested in connection with Operation Yewtree (into Savile) included 15-yr-hounded former pop star Gary Glitter, Radio 1 DJ Dave Lee Travis, comedian Freddie Starr and top publicist Max Clifford.

{Yes, people in Russia and China had more freedom from frivolous and intrusive long-back-dated persecution – so long as they didn’t directly criticize the government. Advertising Russia’s liberty, President Putin offered Russian citizenship to famed French actor Gerard Depardieu, who he was sure would prefer Russia’s flat tax rate of 13% compared to the 75% being introduced by batty French socialist President Hollande.}

The vast scale and heavy-handedness of cops’ persecution ooops prosecution of celebrity paedophiles disturbed even the right-wing Daily Mail – not known for abjuring paedohysteria (Richard Littlejohn, 4 i).

That Britain was in denial about its bankruptcy (and still-mounting debt – despite Coalition promises) was shown as a ten-year jail sentence was lavished on an entirely worthy 35-yr-old teacher and ardent sports coach working at a £28Kpa Somerset school (Daily Mail, 5 i).

His crimes? He had had a few dozen sessions of mutual masturbation and oral sex over two years of being the confidant and inspiration of a 12-14-yr rugby-loving pupil who believed himself to be homosexual and couldn’t get enough of the affectionate contact and ‘physical tests’ with his favourite master.

Harm done? To the youth, none that could be mentioned, let alone demonstrated. To the taxpayer, £1M (once special costs of protecting the ‘nonce’ from other cons were included), plus another £1M for the ruin of a career and another £1M for a likely post-jail lifetime of welfare dependency (perhaps including a new identity, relocation and plastic surgery).

PAEDOHYSTERICS DON’T RESEARCH

Thirty years of growing paedohysteria had yielded literally no advance in knowledge about paedophilia – which remained unexplained and even poorly classified. Such was the conclusion of a helpful review by Jon Henley in the Guardian (4 i). The article began:

"In 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament's criminal law revision committee. It caused barely a ripple. "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult," it read, "result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage."

How weird and wonderful that no-one, but no-one, drew that submission to my attention as I battled Edinburgh LUniversity through 1996-98! Amusingly, the NCCL of the 1970s was run by several figures who went on to be leading Labourites.

21 thoughts on “Chris Brand 06/01/2013

  1. Alan Vaughn

    He just gets better and better. Why the hell can’t these BRAINLESS and moronic feminist brain-washed, paedohysterical jealous femihags and their paedocritical, mangina slaves get it?
    Especially when he tells everyone the truth about their hysteria with comments like this:

    In 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament’s criminal law revision committee. It caused barely a ripple. “Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult,” it read, “result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage.”

    Apart from informed and unbiased commentators such as Chris Brand telling them who and what they are (essentially gold diggers and/or imbeciles), their own God-given common sense should tell them: that procreation or ‘the act of having sex’ is a God-given natural bodily-function and behaviour, that was deliberately designed by God (or by evolution if one is agnostic or atheist) to be PLEASANT, enjoyable, nice, etc…
    It was designed to be pleasant to ensure everyone would indulge and thus proliferate the species!
    How then, can something so enjoyable and pleasant therefore: at the same time, also be something that causes so much misery and ‘HARM’ or ‘lifelong psychological DAMAGE’ and thus be identified with ‘ABUSE’?
    In ALL cases that these imbeciles want to persecute paedos, perverts etc.: the relationships between the adults and ‘children’ (who could be 17 yr/o) are fully consensual. These relationships are NOT rape, but only statutory rape: ‘Rape’ as defined by politically corrected feminist nonsense, hogwash language manipulation.
    I.e. ‘A 17 year old ‘child’ is too young and immature to give her consent for sex, therefore if she has sex with (an older) man it is rape’…

    I think there might also be some a lot of truth in the theory that there are puritanical religious leanings of this whole ‘paedophilia’ myth (the myth of it being harmful), as they often tout that anything that gives one ‘pleasure’ must be ‘sinful’. And they especially appear to claim that such ‘sins (of the flesh)’ are harmful as such, when they are NOT imbibing or deriving those sinful pleasures themselves.
    I.e. a middle-aged man evangelist married to a horrible, burnt-out femihag being the typical proponent of the myth. In reality: a classic paedocrite!

    In other words, like their co-opting sexual trade union allies (who started the whole myth of young sex causing lasting or lifelong ‘damage’ to ‘children’): they are patently JEALOUS of those men and the ‘children’ (the lucky men are sexually involved with) and so too are the brainwashed paedohysterical and paedocritcal public…

  2. Eric

    Brand is right, of course. Whenever a culture loses control, scapegoating and witch-hunting are the inevitable result.

  3. Alan Vaughn

    You said something funny recently asking why the manginas at AVfM can’t realise that they could enjoy real girls instead of these aged ‘lovely sheilas’. Hilarious, but I’m not sure that it’s true. I’m sure most nubile teenage girls are repulsed by the likes of Dean Esmay, Dr F Mangina, just as they would be by David Futrelle, and that’s why these guys don’t want any other men their age to have the fun that they could never have.

    LOL!!
    Yeah, maybe what I said was funny, but not half as funny as your reply which of course is so true, which is why it’s so funny!
    The girls I had in mind when writing that comment (in reply to Eric) are not quite: ‘nubile teenaged girls’ (but they almost are), wouldn’t even have them (and they are not generally too concerned about how old, or how handsome a potential boyfriend is or isn’t), simply because they would all want a relationship with a MAN, not a feminized, gutless mangina…

    So by being manginas they’ve virtually enshrined themselves in that role forever and there’s no way out for them.

  4. Deano

    Paedohysteria is also a perfect outlet for those who enjoy seeing others suffer. They attack those accused of the crime supposedly to show support for ‘the little kiddies’, yet I wonder how many of these thugs would lift a finger or donate a cent to directly help children? Of the few that might, I’m willing to bet they would only assist providing it would be publicized – “Look at me! I’m doin’ it for the kids!”

    Their main passion seems to be inflicting pain on the isolated. Attacking paedophiles, and more often merely suspected paedophiles, is now sanctioned by Big Media. 150 years ago, these idiots would have been cheering at bear baiting events or eagerly lining up to view public hangings. I remember watching the Jamie Bulger murder case unfold. Now, the whole thing was just horrible but I remember being shocked to see the ‘usual crowd’ outside the court calling for the two ten year olds that did it to be tortured and hanged. It struck me that these fully adult morons had the same mindset of the juvenile murderers and, like paedocrites, felt uneasy that someone so very much them had been caught.

  5. theantifeminist

    Post author

    @Alan LOL, you’re very right. BTW, I deleted my original answer because I hadn’t paid attention to the degree to which you’d nailed it on the head regarding the sexual jealousy origin of puritanism.

    This is what I was trying to get across in my discussion with IR the other day (and IR always makes very good points and is one of the readers here who most sees the femihag root of paedohysteria). I dont’ underestimate the role that puritanism has played in all of this – after all, I’m one of the few MRAs who appears to understand and to have researched the origins of feminism in the social purity movements of the 19th century (which fought to raise the age of consent and criminalize prostitution). But what we can’t forget is that female sexual jealousy, and even male sexual jealousy, as you mention, is undoubtedly a massive driving force in puritanism itself.

    And this probably dates to the origins of Christianity itself. I keep meaning to reasearch the role that women played in the development of early Christianity – from the little I’ve read, it’s clear that their part has been underplayed. And the conditions of the later Roman Empire were certainly ripe for a sexual purity movement, with cities the size of which had never been seen before, incredibly cosmopolitan in ethnic make up, and teeming with prostitutes from all corners of the (known) world together with a decline in ‘family values’.

    I wonder if Eric might have some thoughts on this as he is much better read on the Ancient World than I am.

    And I’m sure that if we could see what the likes of St Paul actually looked like, I wouldn’t be surprised if they bore an uncanny resemblance to ugly creeps such as David Futrelle or Dean Esmay.

  6. Eric

    Antifeminist:
    I don’t remember the source, but one of the Doctors of the early church gave a description of St. Paul based on what someone who’d known him had said. According to this writer, everyone who saw St. Paul decribed him as looking like a hawk. Apparently, he was short and portly with a prominent nose and dark intense eyes. Some pagan writers have also mentioned the same things.

    As for the earliest Christians, they taught gender equality, but did also stress polarity so that it was always a male-controlled system from early on. The social purity aspect really came in during the 2nd and 3rd centuries as the Christians became both more millenarian and moved more towards the Old Testament as their foundational belief-structure and away from Platonism and Pythagoreanism which originally had played a huge role in Christianity’s development.

  7. Eric

    Rookh has written quite extensively about the connections between Puritanism and feminism and one thing that can’t be overlooked is that both the Anglosphere and Scandanavia—where Protestant Puritanism displaced Roman Catholicism—are feminism’s fiercest strongholds. The Catholic Church did hold itself as the ‘Mother Church’ but that was balanced by the ‘Paternal State’. The Puritans broke that system and, even since, mortal women have been pedestalized in place of Mary and the female saints.

  8. Eric

    Alan & Antifeminist:
    That discussion reminded me of an article Welmer posted a few months ago that I thought was one of his better ones:

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/07/13/another-idea-on-feminist-men/

    “The men who support feminism are exactly those men who would be on the bottom of the totem-pole in a male-dominated environment. It’s about relative status. If there were really a patriarchy and male dominance in society, then these men would be the ‘losers’ that other men look down upon for whatever reason. So it’s in their best interests to dismantle any masculine instutions or power wherever possible, as this gives them more relative status and power. For them, using feminism to ‘deconstruct masculinity’ is a way to put other men down and prop themselves up. Male feminism is truly about envy, maybe even more than the female kind.”

  9. Alan Vaughn

    about the rape case in India – interesting, and surprisingly (but level-headedly) pro-men article at The Telegraph:

    It’s not at all surprising, since the article was written by possibly the most pro-men and men’s rights sympathizer in the msm today: Brendan O’Neill. He is one of the leading writers of a few, from probably the ONLY true anti-feminist and anti-paedohysteria msm source, that hasn’t yet fallen victim to feminist pc hate-speech legislation: SPIKED-ONLINE.com …

  10. inclinedreader

    It’s not at all surprising, since the article was written by possibly the most pro-men and men’s rights sympathizer in the msm today: Brendan O’Neill.

    well it is sad though that these days, people like him, at least on his level, are little more than lone voices in the dark and completely drowned out by mainline commentators who often don’t even realize themselves how brainwashed into gender fascism they really are.

  11. Alan Vaughn

    @inclinedreader,
    Yes that’s for sure and I’m also wondering just when it will be, that Brendon O’Neill and his ‘misogynist’ colleagues at Spiked-online will be effectively silenced by the gender fascists, for merely questioning their current (widely supported) narrative.

    I think he would have ruffled a few of their feathers when he pointed out firstly, how the UN is now another femi-fascist organization that shouldn’t have been involved at all and secondly: how the UN only was (is) involved because of the current dominant narrative, which it (as a gynocratic empire) naturally endorses – ‘All men are rapists’:

    A handful of observers have challenged the sweeping demonisation of India and its people in the wake of the Delhi rape – but strikingly they have done so on the basis that we in the West are just as rapacious as the “hyena-like” men of the subcontinent. In the past, progressives would have critiqued the heaping of collective guilt on to foreign nations on the basis that it was inhumane and inaccurate; now they critique it on the basis that rape is not just “a cultural phenomenon in India”, but is “endemic everywhere”, with verbal or violent misogyny “happening all around us”, including in civilised countries like Britain. In other words, it isn’t just Indian men who are hyenas – all men are.

    I have seen quite a few (men) politicians kicked out, or at least forced to make very nauseating, public retractions or apologies, thus succumbing to the mandatory mangina status, they must accept as part & parcel of being a man in politics; for saying a lot less (over an entire political career), against any aspect feminist law, or any of its ideologies, than what Brendan O’Neill just said in those 3 sentences alone!

  12. Alan Vaughn

    I also added my 2 cetns worth to the comments on Brendan O’Neill’s story, just look for ‘Jervis121′…

  13. inclinedreader

    @ Alan:

    what I find the most appalling is the double standard of this whole gender fascism… feminist hate speech against men gets away with everything, scot free. You have a whole barrage of feminist extremist web sites, political and social commentators, editorialists, authors and whatnot who publicly denigrate the male gender with abandon and even hide behind “free speech”, while recently the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), by now also firmly in the veiny-handed grip of femihags and gender nazis, collectively called the Men’s Rights movement, for standpoints usually much tamer than those of any garden-variety feminist, a “hate group”.

    And that’s where society is going so horribly wrong… if we really want a truly egalitarian society, with actual true gender justice, then we can’t let feminists get away with their sexist misandric hate speech.

  14. Alan Vaughn

    @inclinedreader

    And that’s where society is going so horribly wrong… if we really want a truly egalitarian society, with actual true gender justice, then we can’t let feminists get away with their sexist misandric hate speech.

    And that’s why the most INFURIATING thing any man in government can do is say something really trivial but TRUE in every respect, i.e. state publicly how this ‘date rape’ INJUSTICE is misused by women to effect revenge or punishments against men they don’t like, or regret the next day, that they (fully consensually) slept with.
    Then immediately after such a man speaks out against a typical misandrist injustice or nonsense law (such as date-rape, or just about any form of rape nowadays), all the feminists and their obedient, mangina mouth-pieces: DEMAND that he retracts what he said and must also follow it up with a nauseating, grovelling apology.
    It makes me so fucking MAD, because as you have just pointed out: they can say ANYTHING they like – even publicly discuss on blogs (Rad-FemHub) plans of exterminating men and boys, with abandonment.

    As I’ve often said, the feminists are only part of the problem.
    The real insurmountable barrier preventing a true egalitarian society is our own kind: most other (indoctrinated) thus cowardly manginas men, who not only defend feminist hatred with their inherent white-knight desire to impress femihags, but who are powerless to do anything even if they wanted to, because of the laws their (white-knight & mangina) predecessors passed for them a few decades earlier (now carved in stone), effectively compel them to defend them.
    And of course if the ‘protecting children’ card is played (as it is more and more often), they can say and do ANYTHING at all.

    Feminists know what ‘makes men tick’, not just in relation to their sexuality (thus draconian sexuality laws), but they also understand the ‘white-knight’ that lives in every man. They exploit both of those unique male characteristics to manipulate or ‘program’ them into defending their ideologies and everything they say and do.

    ‘Free speech’. It is allowed, providing it supports the dominant narrative and doesn’t dissent from it or question it in any way. In other words: it’s a JOKE!
    Providing it supports the dominant narrative: even ‘hate speech’ is fine…
    It’s just a word they use to con people with. There really cannot be such thing as ‘freedom of speech’, as it would collapse the essential totalitarian state that feminism relies upon to function.

    Governments tell their people that they have the right of ‘free speech’, but they are lying. They only say that to prevent them from slipping into a true state of anarchy, which of course has been close to happening in some countries, recently.
    Telling people they have the right of free speech is akin to giving a restless baby a pacifier – it will only keep them happy for a short time too. Many are already waking up to the fact that they don’t have any freedoms or civil liberties and any they did have, are slowly but surely being stripped away from them.

    History has shown that people are much like babies (with pacifiers instead of a bottles of milk in their mouths) and will tolerate being tricked (by dictator or totalitarian governments) only for relatively short times…

  15. inclinedreader

    Then immediately after such a man speaks out against a typical misandrist injustice or nonsense law (such as date-rape, or just about any form of rape nowadays), all the feminists and their obedient, mangina mouth-pieces: DEMAND that he retracts what he said and must also follow it up with a nauseating, grovelling apology.

    …and it also ties in with the infamy of “rape culture”.

    There is no such thing as a rape culture, it’s all an invention by feminists and their white knights and castrated manginas to convince society that all men are in fact potential rapists.

    The only way for them to even forge and bring about the “rape culture” meme was by reworking definitions of rape to harrowing extents, where in some jurisdictions even so much as kissing somebody without their unambiguous express prior consent has been redefined as down-and-dirty “rape”. But it doesn’t stop there; if anything, going by the myriads of rape accusations that turn out to be fabrications on closer examination, what we have is a false rape culture. And add to that the pending “wolf whistle” legislation in the UK which will essentially make every man a rapist in a manner of speaking simply for making a – however modest – pass at a woman in the street.

    Naturally, what you then end up with is statistics that show an an abundance of “rape”… which never was. And detractors of this draconian doctrine are then pointed fingers at for allegedly slighting victims of violent penetrative rape. Of course without ever really explaining just how exactly a false rape accusation that falls apart, or a reluctantly received kiss, or a come-on in passing is in any way on the same level as brutally forcing your penis inside a victim’s vaginal (or anal) cavity. You could very well say, who is really slighting actual rape victims, by conflating sexual innuendo, even if perceived as a nuisance, as well as false rape claims and unwanted invasions of personal space with the traumatic act of actual forcible rape.

  16. Alan Vaughn

    @inclinedreader
    And this false rape culture exists and will only get much worse, because our own peers: so-called “MEN” will allow it to.
    In the end, most men won’t dare to even look at a woman who isn’t a family member or close relative and by then the privileged princesses will still be making false allegations based upon their sexual fantasies, that will be born out of their unbearable sexual FRUSTRATION – wishful thinking. (Because no man in his right mind will even entertain the idea of having sex)!
    I think (false) accusations based upon sexual fantasies, or ‘wishful thinking’ are already being made now, when I look at some of the absolute FUGLIES that make such ridiculous claims – many almost have “PLEASE F*** ME” tattooed across their foreheads. They would be rape PERPETRATORS, not victims!

    Then of course let’s not forget also, that there are no penalties whatsoever for making totally false allegations, they can make them with absolute impunity, (which must cost tax-payers a fortune in wasted police and other related resources), not to mention the large sums of ‘victim’s compensation’ the abuse industry legal-eagles (sharks) promise they will be paid! Thus they are effectively being encouraged to support the false rape culture. It’s all part of the multi-billion $US abuse industry that Angry Harry has written so much about.

    What the femi-Nazis and their indoctrinated white-knight mangina slaves of the gynocracies are not foreseeing though, is how it could all back-fire, as a ‘crying wolf’ situation prevails: when eventually, NOBODY will believe their stories, which will make life very dangerous for women, because of what you quite rightly pointed out here:

    You could very well say, who is really slighting actual rape victims, by conflating sexual innuendo, even if perceived as a nuisance, as well as false rape claims and unwanted invasions of personal space with the traumatic act of actual forcible rape.

    But looking at it from another (i.e. feminist) perspective: Feminists and their wealthy abuse industry have demonstrated they have the most effective propaganda and indoctrination methods ever deployed, so it would not be totally inconceivable that they could convince society that, for example: a man who simply stares at a woman or girl is committing a grossly perverted act (of RAPE) and a heinous crime, worthy of a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years in prison…

    Where or when will the hatred ever end?

  17. inclinedreader

    @Alan:

    a man who simply stares at a woman or girl is committing a grossly perverted act (of RAPE) and a heinous crime, worthy of a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years in prison…

    …and if somebody asked you WHERE such legislation might be imminent, you would be forgiven for thinking that it’s in one of the Islamist theocracies of the Middle East…

    Those femihags absolutely would outlaw men gazing at an attractive young woman’s butt or cleavage, given enough political clout… which unfortunately they are well in the process of gaining.

    And indeed, I think I read a few years ago that there was a sex crimes bill introduced in one state in the U.S. that sought to make “eye-fucking” of minors (again, everybody under 18) a criminal offense… which would have sent you to jail merely for ogling a young woman’s assets while entertaining sexual thoughts in the back of your head…

    But you don’t have to look as far as some nutjob legislators in the U.S. … some two or three years ago, Iceland (by now also a gynocratic Nordic poster child) outlawed strip clubs basically for the same reason… because it was thought to be “degrading to women” when dozens of men are gawking at their nude and semi-nude bodies.

  18. Alan Vaughn

    @inclinedreader

    …because it was thought to be “degrading to women” when dozens of men are gawking at their nude and semi-nude bodies.

    LOL!! Yes I remember not only reading about it, I also heard it on the radio, in news broadcasts over about one whole week and thinking something like: Of course, what those bitter and jealous Nordic femihags really MEANT to say though, was more like:
    “…because it was thought to be “degrading to women” when dozens of men are gawking at their nude and semi-nude young, nubile and beautiful bodies.”

  19. Alan Vaughn

    @inclinedreader

    Then immediately after such a man speaks out against a typical misandrist injustice or nonsense law (such as date-rape, or just about any form of rape nowadays), all the feminists and their obedient, mangina mouth-pieces: DEMAND that he retracts what he said and must also follow it up with a nauseating, grovelling apology.

    Here’s a very recent example of what we were just discussing.
    OK, David Koch isn’t a politician (although I think he did try to become one a couple of years back), but he is a very prominent (male) public figure and he expressed dissent against an accepted feminist ‘right’ (to breastfeed their babies in public).
    You can mark my words: that very soon, he will do what they are all, almost REQUIRED to do:
    Publicly (probably via the TV program he hosts) retract what he said and make a classic sickening, gutless-mangina: apology.

    Actually IR, this is one bet I would really love to LOSE!!

    Be sure to read this whole story and note the ridiculous ‘double-standard’ argument they offer to further denigrate him and men in general.
    And of course they being experts on the subject: ‘double-standards’…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>