Jump to content

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, exile said:

I was watching a programme on TV about the American War of Independence last night , which admittedly I know little about. 

The book ‘Common Sense’ that  Thomas Paine wrote in 1776 was instrumental in convincing Americans to claim independence. 
Whilst removal of the monarchy was a major factor so too was his simple language and ‘common sense’ . 

‘’In Common Sense, Thomas Paine argues for American independence. ... Paine says the people will be much happier if they are responsible for the creation of the laws that rule them. Paine is also implicitly arguing that such a system of representation is also better for the American colonists.‘’
 

I really think we have an opportunity now to convince people through simple language that it is normal and makes sense to be independent in order that that we can make our own decisions.

This pandemic has provided a clear example of the restrictions placed on us by being part of this union. It may not be the same restrictions that existed in 1776 for America but there is clearly a divide between the countries and if we dont take this opportunity I doubt we ever will . 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

I was watching a programme on TV about the American War of Independence last night , which admittedly I know little about. 

The book ‘Common Sense’ that  Thomas Paine wrote in 1776 was instrumental in convincing Americans to claim independence. 
Whilst removal of the monarchy was a major factor so too was his simple language and ‘common sense’ . 

‘’In Common Sense, Thomas Paine argues for American independence. ... Paine says the people will be much happier if they are responsible for the creation of the laws that rule them. Paine is also implicitly arguing that such a system of representation is also better for the American colonists.‘’
 

I really think we have an opportunity now to convince people through simple language that it is normal and makes sense to be independent in order that that we can make our own decisions.

This pandemic has provided a clear example of the restrictions placed on us by being part of this union. It may not be the same restrictions that existed in 1776 for America but there is clearly a divide between the countries and if we dont take this opportunity I doubt we ever will . 

It is also a clear demonstration where being under Westminster rule has been a significant hindrance what with the mixed messages, dithering and lack of swiftness on lockdown and testing plus lack of PPE. People have seen that being away from Westmister rule would benefit us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anybody see the guy from Cairn O'Mohr winery on Reporting Scotland last week?  I'm amazed they showed it actually.  Brilliant straight talking.  If only our representatives had the balls to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, daviebee said:

Did anybody see the guy from Cairn O'Mohr winery on Reporting Scotland last week?  I'm amazed they showed it actually.  Brilliant straight talking.  If only our representatives had the balls to do the same.

Sorry, no.   Anyone got a clip?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, daviebee said:

Did anybody see the guy from Cairn O'Mohr winery on Reporting Scotland last week?  I'm amazed they showed it actually.  Brilliant straight talking.  If only our representatives had the balls to do the same.

Yeah. My first thought was ‘how the fuck did he slip through the the net” 

On a side note, that place is near Errol and the stuff blows your fucking head off.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Grim Jim said:

Sorry, no.   Anyone got a clip?

Found it in a FB group.  The guy isn't on for long but manages to say more than most of our reps put together.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim Beem said:

Yeah. My first thought was ‘how the fuck did he slip through the the net” 

On a side note, that place is near Errol and the stuff blows your fucking head off.  

Only if you drink too much of it. :lol:

It's really good stuff and they were doing free deliveries during lockdown. Not sure if they still are. Shop local.

If we ever get back to "normal" again, their wine tours are pretty good. Get a nominated driver to take you though if you want to fully appreciate it. I was pretty blootered. You only get a wee sip of each wine but they fair mount up and sneak up on you. They also have non alcoholic versions for the drivers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Load of shit getting thrown around today.  Sky, with Christine Jardine being a useful idiot, going on about whether or not the FM first found out about the Salmond disciplinary process on the 29th March as Geoff Aberdein mentioned in court or whether it was the 2nd April as she told Parliament.  I suspect that it'll al come out in the inquiry but it's clearly mud slinging right now.

Also, Labour and the Tories are calling for the BBC to stop broadcasting the COVID updates as they're "too political".  They need to take a fucking look at themselves.

Tommy Sheridan, backing Salmond to stand on the list.  I'm sure a convicted perjurer is exactly the sort of backing he'll be looking for.

The Yooniverse has gone a bit wild. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, aaid said:

Load of shit getting thrown around today.  Sky, with Christine Jardine being a useful idiot, going on about whether or not the FM first found out about the Salmond disciplinary process on the 29th March as Geoff Aberdein mentioned in court or whether it was the 2nd April as she told Parliament.  I suspect that it'll al come out in the inquiry but it's clearly mud slinging right now.

Also, Labour and the Tories are calling for the BBC to stop broadcasting the COVID updates as they're "too political".  They need to take a fucking look at themselves.

Tommy Sheridan, backing Salmond to stand on the list.  I'm sure a convicted perjurer is exactly the sort of backing he'll be looking for.

The Yooniverse has gone a bit wild. 

I would be totally and utterly gobsmacked if there wasn't a heck of a lot of shit flung at any aspects of the independence movement and the SNP too. The unionists are getting sweaty palms at the 2020 opinion polls on independence. Things are slipping away from them  and they know that and their only way of trying to counter that is by using anything they can and trying to magnify it to better the unionist cause and cover up the yawning chasms in the argument for staying in the union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

I would be totally and utterly gobsmacked if there wasn't a heck of a lot of shit flung at any aspects of the independence movement and the SNP too. The unionists are getting sweaty palms at the 2020 opinion polls on independence. Things are slipping away from them  and they know that and their only way of trying to counter that is by using anything they can and trying to magnify it to better the unionist cause and cover up the yawning chasms in the argument for staying in the union.

I wonder what it would have been like if they had put the boot in..🤔🤔 or bayonet the wounded...🤔🤔

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not quite sure what Ruth theMooth meant by saying they should have put the boot in. In what context does she mean? To me it seems more like an excuse.for why things are tge way they ate now. She should look to reasons such as broken promises on the unionist side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

I am not quite sure what Ruth theMooth meant by saying they should have put the boot in. In what context does she mean? To me it seems more like an excuse.for why things are tge way they ate now. She should look to reasons such as broken promises on the unionist side.

Even she probably isn't sure what she meant. It was a soundbite, nothing else, designed to generate headlines and rouse "the troops" with a bit of bulldog fighting spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

I am not quite sure what Ruth theMooth meant by saying they should have put the boot in. In what context does she mean? To me it seems more like an excuse.for why things are tge way they ate now. She should look to reasons such as broken promises on the unionist side.

Taking Ermine this week apparently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky News Miss the Story 171

Sky News are today carrying the story that Nicola Sturgeon attended a meeting with Salmond’s former Chief of Staff, Geoff Aberdein, about a historic sexual allegation made against Alex Salmond on 29 March 2018, several days before she claimed to parliament that she first heard of it. It will prove in the long term still more significant that this meeting also contradicts Sturgeon’s claim that it was Alex Salmond who first told her of the existence of the allegations.

This all appears to come as news to James Matthews, the Sky reporter. The extraordinary thing is, that both he and I sat through the testimony under oath on this point of Geoff Aberdein at the Alex Salmond trial.

On 8 to 9 March 2018 … had contacted him to say she was involved in a process of looking at complaints about Alex Salmond. He had spoken to Kevin Pringle and Duncan Hamilton by conference call to discuss this. On 29 March 2018 he had held a meeting with Nicola Sturgeon in the Scottish Parliament to discuss this. On 2 April he had attended a further meeting in Sturgeon’s home.

Matthews obviously thought it of no significance – but then again, it was defence evidence and Matthews, in common with the entire mainstream media, reported virtually zero of the defence evidence. Today’s Sky News article helpfully gives links to the headlines of their Salmond trial stories:

Screenshot-1198.png

As you will see, lurid allegations from the prosecution witnesses – lurid allegations which were untrue – were prominently featured as the headlines. You will search those reports in vain for detail or even a bare outline of the defence case. The verdict is treated as a shock, and then we are straight in to stories querying the verdict.

Matthews and all the MSM hacks came for a hanging. They thus missed the real story, which is of a conspiracy at the highest levels of the Scottish Government to frame Alex Salmond. This finally seems to have penetrated even James Matthews’ thick skull. Had he been paying attention to the defence evidence, he could have published today’s article two months ago.

This relates to the single allegation in the Salmond trial which was about a real incident which actually happened, as opposed to a fiction, a distinction the jury appears to have made by finding only this one “Not Proven” and the others “Not Guilty”. Salmond stated it was a case of working very late together and drinking, getting intimate and going a bit too far with a cuddle. At the time he made a formal apology through a civil service process, which was accepted, and given the choice of transfer the official continued to work closely with him.

The separate official who contacted Aberdein about weaponising this initial Salmond allegation is somebody extremely close to Nicola Sturgeon and very senior in her office. She first contacted Aberdein on 8-9 March – almost a full month before Sturgeon claims she first knew of the allegation.

Anybody who knows how Sturgeon operates would find it extremely improbable that a senior member of her office would be undertaking such discussions without her knowledge. It is simply impossible that the staff member would then go on to arrange a meeting with Sturgeon herself on the subject, without Sturgeon’s prior knowledge and agreement. So we can be extremely confident that Sturgeon knew about the allegation before 29 March, and very probably before 9 March.

It seems from the Sky article that Sturgeon’s defence is to call Geoff Aberdein a liar.

A Scottish government spokesperson told Sky News that Ms Sturgeon does not dispute that the 29 March meeting took place but refutes the suggestion that it involved discussion of the Scottish government’s Salmond inquiry.

This may be difficult for Aberdein as at the 29 March meeting the only other person present was the senior official from Sturgeon’s office, a person whose truthfulness I am by no means alone in holding in great doubt. But in his sworn evidence Aberdein stated that he had a teleconference to discuss the development with Duncan Hamilton and Kevin Pringle, both persons of considerable probity.

I was deeply shocked, indeed shaken, on Friday evening when I was shown a new letter from the Crown Office, denying the existence of a document relevant to my own defence which I know for certain to exist and to be held by the Crown – it was one of those documents, proving the wider conspiracy, excluded from the Salmond trial by the judge as “collateral evidence”. I am now just as shocked by the above Scottish government statement about the 29 March meeting. Lies, evasions, sophistry and denials are perhaps to be expected from politicians, but they are being communicated by civil servants, which says something about the degree of corruption in Scotland today.

I am very sorry, but Scottish politics are about to get very dirty indeed. The degree of penetration and influence by the UK security services behind these events must not be underestimated.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/07/sky-news-miss-the-story/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Sky News Miss the Story 171

Sky News are today carrying the story that Nicola Sturgeon attended a meeting with Salmond’s former Chief of Staff, Geoff Aberdein, about a historic sexual allegation made against Alex Salmond on 29 March 2018, several days before she claimed to parliament that she first heard of it. It will prove in the long term still more significant that this meeting also contradicts Sturgeon’s claim that it was Alex Salmond who first told her of the existence of the allegations.

This all appears to come as news to James Matthews, the Sky reporter. The extraordinary thing is, that both he and I sat through the testimony under oath on this point of Geoff Aberdein at the Alex Salmond trial.

On 8 to 9 March 2018 … had contacted him to say she was involved in a process of looking at complaints about Alex Salmond. He had spoken to Kevin Pringle and Duncan Hamilton by conference call to discuss this. On 29 March 2018 he had held a meeting with Nicola Sturgeon in the Scottish Parliament to discuss this. On 2 April he had attended a further meeting in Sturgeon’s home.

Matthews obviously thought it of no significance – but then again, it was defence evidence and Matthews, in common with the entire mainstream media, reported virtually zero of the defence evidence. Today’s Sky News article helpfully gives links to the headlines of their Salmond trial stories:

Screenshot-1198.png

As you will see, lurid allegations from the prosecution witnesses – lurid allegations which were untrue – were prominently featured as the headlines. You will search those reports in vain for detail or even a bare outline of the defence case. The verdict is treated as a shock, and then we are straight in to stories querying the verdict.

Matthews and all the MSM hacks came for a hanging. They thus missed the real story, which is of a conspiracy at the highest levels of the Scottish Government to frame Alex Salmond. This finally seems to have penetrated even James Matthews’ thick skull. Had he been paying attention to the defence evidence, he could have published today’s article two months ago.

This relates to the single allegation in the Salmond trial which was about a real incident which actually happened, as opposed to a fiction, a distinction the jury appears to have made by finding only this one “Not Proven” and the others “Not Guilty”. Salmond stated it was a case of working very late together and drinking, getting intimate and going a bit too far with a cuddle. At the time he made a formal apology through a civil service process, which was accepted, and given the choice of transfer the official continued to work closely with him.

The separate official who contacted Aberdein about weaponising this initial Salmond allegation is somebody extremely close to Nicola Sturgeon and very senior in her office. She first contacted Aberdein on 8-9 March – almost a full month before Sturgeon claims she first knew of the allegation.

Anybody who knows how Sturgeon operates would find it extremely improbable that a senior member of her office would be undertaking such discussions without her knowledge. It is simply impossible that the staff member would then go on to arrange a meeting with Sturgeon herself on the subject, without Sturgeon’s prior knowledge and agreement. So we can be extremely confident that Sturgeon knew about the allegation before 29 March, and very probably before 9 March.

It seems from the Sky article that Sturgeon’s defence is to call Geoff Aberdein a liar.

A Scottish government spokesperson told Sky News that Ms Sturgeon does not dispute that the 29 March meeting took place but refutes the suggestion that it involved discussion of the Scottish government’s Salmond inquiry.

This may be difficult for Aberdein as at the 29 March meeting the only other person present was the senior official from Sturgeon’s office, a person whose truthfulness I am by no means alone in holding in great doubt. But in his sworn evidence Aberdein stated that he had a teleconference to discuss the development with Duncan Hamilton and Kevin Pringle, both persons of considerable probity.

I was deeply shocked, indeed shaken, on Friday evening when I was shown a new letter from the Crown Office, denying the existence of a document relevant to my own defence which I know for certain to exist and to be held by the Crown – it was one of those documents, proving the wider conspiracy, excluded from the Salmond trial by the judge as “collateral evidence”. I am now just as shocked by the above Scottish government statement about the 29 March meeting. Lies, evasions, sophistry and denials are perhaps to be expected from politicians, but they are being communicated by civil servants, which says something about the degree of corruption in Scotland today.

I am very sorry, but Scottish politics are about to get very dirty indeed. The degree of penetration and influence by the UK security services behind these events must not be underestimated.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/07/sky-news-miss-the-story/

I like Craig Murray's stuff. That article is just reemphasizing stuff he has already told us. But this bit made me chuckle.

"Lies, evasions, sophistry and denials are perhaps to be expected from politicians, but they are being communicated by civil servants, which says something about the degree of corruption in Scotland today."

Is he really trying to tell us that Craig Murray thinks that civil servants are more honest and trustworthy than politicians? :lol: I'm not buying that for one minute. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26 July 2020 at 12:15 PM, TDYER63 said:

I was watching a programme on TV about the American War of Independence last night , which admittedly I know little about. 

The book ‘Common Sense’ that  Thomas Paine wrote in 1776 was instrumental in convincing Americans to claim independence. 
Whilst removal of the monarchy was a major factor so too was his simple language and ‘common sense’ . 

‘’In Common Sense, Thomas Paine argues for American independence. ... Paine says the people will be much happier if they are responsible for the creation of the laws that rule them. Paine is also implicitly arguing that such a system of representation is also better for the American colonists.‘’
 

I really think we have an opportunity now to convince people through simple language that it is normal and makes sense to be independent in order that that we can make our own decisions.

This pandemic has provided a clear example of the restrictions placed on us by being part of this union. It may not be the same restrictions that existed in 1776 for America but there is clearly a divide between the countries and if we dont take this opportunity I doubt we ever will . 

Interesting fact about the American War of Independence and the involvement of Scots, specifically Scottish emigrants, which is completely counter-intuitive when viewed through the prism of the current political situation in the UK.

A bit of a generalisation and there would've been participants and supporters on both sides however in the general case this is true.

There were two major groups of Scottish emigrants in what was then the colonies at the time of the revolution.  They were also in what would become the Southern States, so Maryland, Virgina, Georgia, the Carolinas.  Westward expansion hadn't really happened over the Appalachians by this point.

The reason why they settled in the south was that was where the land was, before the Union in 1707, emigration had been controlled and was generally restricted to the English who had tended to settle further north, eg, New England.

There two major groups of Scots emigrants in the Colonies at that time.  One was the Ulster-Scots or Scotch-Irish as they are known locally.  These were the descendents of Scots Presbyterians, primarily lowland, who had first settled in Ulster in the 16th and 17th centuries. They were the first major group to emigrate and went over in the first part of the 18th century.  Their descendants - or to be more accurate, the descendents of those who remained in Ulster are today's Ulster Loyalists and Unionists.

The other group were Jacobites who had either been forceably transported or had emigrated under their own steam - or sail - following the 45 Rebellion.  A group, who while probably not direct descendents a lot of latter-day Scottish Nationalists would identify with. 

You would think that the Ulster-Scots would be loyal to the crown and the Jacobites would be on the rebel side and you'd be wrong, it was the other way around.

The rationale actually makes sense, for the Ulster Scots, it was all about religious freedom, in Ireland there was an attempt to anglicise the Ireland, particularly in regards of religion.  Presbyterians, or dissenters as they were officially called, were discriminated against although not to the same extent as Roman Catholics were.  It was this that in part drove the migration, so as a group they were not well disposed to the Crown meddling in their affairs.

The Jacobites were fundamentally monarchists and while they probably thought that there should a Stuart on the throne, the supported the concept of the monarchy over the Republic.

A notable example of this was Flora MacDonald, or more precisely her husband who was a crown loyalist and who returned to Scotland after the War.  Most of the Jacobites moved north and settled in Canada. 

If you look into the history of the American Revolution and the founding fathers then majority of those with Scots Ancestry and Heritage are actually Ulster Scots.  

Anyway, I think it's interesting.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, aaid said:

Interesting fact about the American War of Independence and the involvement of Scots, specifically Scottish emigrants, which is completely counter-intuitive when viewed through the prism of the current political situation in the UK.

A bit of a generalisation and there would've been participants and supporters on both sides however in the general case this is true.

There were two major groups of Scottish emigrants in what was then the colonies at the time of the revolution.  They were also in what would become the Southern States, so Maryland, Virgina, Georgia, the Carolinas.  Westward expansion hadn't really happened over the Appalachians by this point.

The reason why they settled in the south was that was where the land was, before the Union in 1707, emigration had been controlled and was generally restricted to the English who had tended to settle further north, eg, New England.

There two major groups of Scots emigrants in the Colonies at that time.  One was the Ulster-Scots or Scotch-Irish as they are known locally.  These were the descendents of Scots Presbyterians, primarily lowland, who had first settled in Ulster in the 16th and 17th centuries. They were the first major group to emigrate and went over in the first part of the 18th century.  Their descendants - or to be more accurate, the descendents of those who remained in Ulster are today's Ulster Loyalists and Unionists.

The other group were Jacobites who had either been forceably transported or had emigrated under their own steam - or sail - following the 45 Rebellion.  A group, who while probably not direct descendents a lot of latter-day Scottish Nationalists would identify with. 

You would think that the Ulster-Scots would be loyal to the crown and the Jacobites would be on the rebel side and you'd be wrong, it was the other way around.

The rationale actually makes sense, for the Ulster Scots, it was all about religious freedom, in Ireland there was an attempt to anglicise the Ireland, particularly in regards of religion.  Presbyterians, or dissenters as they were officially called, were discriminated against although not to the same extent as Roman Catholics were.  It was this that in part drove the migration, so as a group they were not well disposed to the Crown meddling in their affairs.

The Jacobites were fundamentally monarchists and while they probably thought that there should a Stuart on the throne, the supported the concept of the monarchy over the Republic.

A notable example of this was Flora MacDonald, or more precisely her husband who was a crown loyalist and who returned to Scotland after the War.  Most of the Jacobites moved north and settled in Canada. 

If you look into the history of the American Revolution and the founding fathers then majority of those with Scots Ancestry and Heritage are actually Ulster Scots.  

Anyway, I think it's interesting.

Wrote 10,000 words on the Red River Valley as a colony established by Lord Selkirk. Scottish and Irish settlers mixed with Métis people on the American/Canadian border. The area is now part of Manitoba. Wrote it as part of my degree in 1989 when books were the only source of information! As you say, a fascinating period in North American history, with a Scottish element.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the more interesting question is why might Nicola lie about this. If she was the innocent actor in all of this why the need to lie about when you knew.

Seems to me if instead you had been involved from the beginning in the plot and green lighted all the dirty moves to take down Salmond (your former friend and mentor) then that would be an obvious motivation to lie about when you really knew and pretend it was new information when Alex Salmond raised it in the meeting. "Reeeeeally Alex, wow that is news to me...".

Come on folks... no chance she found out then. None.

Personally I find entirely implausible that NS did not know from the outset. This is why she is lying here IMHO. I dare say they were clever enough to give her 'plausible deniability' but the problem here is it is not really plausible. More likely just not provable no doubt.

When you step back from it, it really is a staggeringly shocking act of political betrayal and malice. If they had been successful this would have been an effective death sentence to AS. I cant think of any similar act of betrayal that would rival it in modern political times. And that is before we get to the self inflicted damage on the Independence movement...

The whole thing has stunk from start to finish. Every single step of the way and it continues to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Orraloon said:

I like Craig Murray's stuff. That article is just reemphasizing stuff he has already told us. But this bit made me chuckle.

"Lies, evasions, sophistry and denials are perhaps to be expected from politicians, but they are being communicated by civil servants, which says something about the degree of corruption in Scotland today."

Is he really trying to tell us that Craig Murray thinks that civil servants are more honest and trustworthy than politicians? :lol: I'm not buying that for one minute. 

I'm not sure if that's what he's getting at there. I took it as him trying to highlight how the civil service is, in his view, being politicised.  

Civil servants implement government policy, which then becomes law, and so shouldn't be used to pursue the personal interests of individual politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Alternatively it's petty and pathetic in the extreme, especially considering he failed vetting in 2015.

Not really the action of someone who's expecting people to take him seriously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be quite interesting and potentially very damaging to the independence cause if Alex Salmond joins this new pro-independence party that will contest seats (apparently) at next years elections. Interesting as it will display what level of support Salmond holds among voters today and will he gain votes from those who feel the SNP tried to bust him and scare off votes from others for other reasons. It could be very damaging to the independence cause as it will split the independence vote perhaps 75%-25% without pulling in unionist voters. Interesting times ahead and though things look rosy polls-wise at present then a year down the line things could look different with obstacles lying ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, aaid said:

Alternatively it's petty and pathetic in the extreme, especially considering he failed vetting in 2015.

Not really the action of someone who's expecting people to take him seriously. 

He failed on these grounds

"While you showed excellent qualities, you could not give a full commitment on group discipline issues, and for that reason the Panel could not recommend approval."

Perhaps the SNP have changed their position or he has. It was a single issue based on a single question.

What's your position on the person making an allegation about soemthing happening to her at an event she didn't attend? Or do you for whatever reason consider that less worthy of comment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aaid said:

Alternatively it's petty and pathetic in the extreme, especially considering he failed vetting in 2015.

Not really the action of someone who's expecting people to take him seriously. 

Sounds like you think that anybody who's expecting to be taken seriously isn't allowed to have a sense of humour?

Nothing wrong with a bit of pish taking now and again, just to cheer himself up. :lol:

Edited by Orraloon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...