Open Forum – Monday

27 November 2017

Forum

This post is open to anyone to comment on any topic that isn’t spam, illegal or offensive. All Your NZ posts are open but this one is for you to raise topics that interest you. 

If providing opinions on or summaries of other information also provide a link to that information. Bloggers are welcome to summarise and link to their posts.

Comments worth more exposure may be repeated as posts.Comments from other forums can be repeated here, cut and paste is fine.

Your NZ is a mostly political and social issues blog but not limited to that, and views from anywhere on the political spectrum are welcome. Some ground rules:

  • If possible support arguments, news, points or opinions with links to sources and facts.
  • Please don’t post anything illegal, potentially defamatory or abusive.

FIRST TIME COMMENTERS: Due to abuse by a few first comments under any ID will park in moderation until released (as soon as possible but it can sometimes take a while).

Sometimes comments will go into moderation or spam automatically due to mistyped ID, too many links (>4), or trigger text or other at risk criteria.

Free speech is an important principle here but some people who might pose a risk to the site will have to keep going through moderation due to abuses by a small number of malicious people.

77 Comments

  1. lurcher1948

     /  November 27, 2017

    • Corky

       /  November 27, 2017

      AND HE’S THE PRESIDENT OF AMERICA.

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  November 27, 2017

      And vice-versa, Lurch. It works just as well the other way, which is clever of it.

      How is Old Velvet-Ears Red standing the heat ? Mine has had a short haircut, which will make him more comfy.

  2. Corky

     /  November 27, 2017

    Thought I might see if anything has changed at Whaleoil, given Petes gone.
    I posted that while we don’t want to see Whaleoil revert to old ways, surely moderators could find some middle ground to stop, what in my opinion, has become ‘blandness.” I also pointed out Petes moderation had cost Whaleoil many posters.

    My post went straight to moderation, then disappeared into the ether. It’s business as usual
    – blandness and ‘group think’ still rule.

  3. Corky

     /  November 27, 2017

    Bro in the hood. I always wondered why short sprint work was prioritised during police training. This bro needs to get off fags and hit the gym.

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/10/intense-south-auckland-pursuit-arrest-caught-on-camera.html

    Jake the Muss knew the importance of speed work. AT 2.OO

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  November 27, 2017

      Your bro must be a sad trial to the family, Corks.

  4. Alan Wilkinson

     /  November 27, 2017

    Labour claims NZ taxpayers shouldn’t pay for tourist toilets as it pockets all their GST and leaves ratepayers to pick up the tab. What a shower.

  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  November 27, 2017

    A coup in a “liberated” police state hell-hole:
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-zimbabwe-politics-mugabe-specialrepor/special-report-treacherous-shenanigans-the-inside-story-of-mugabes-downfall-idUSKBN1DQ0AG

    Not much chance of democracy in this God-forsaken communist-fascist bunker yet I would expect.

    • PartisanZ

       /  November 27, 2017

      But possibly an even or better chance than they had before as a ‘God-riven’ capitalist-fascist hell hole? Rhodesia …

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe#Colonial_era_and_Rhodesia_.281888.E2.80.931964.29

      What New Zealand might have been if we were founded as a NZ Company nation?

      Wakefieldland?

      • Corky

         /  November 27, 2017

        I think native Zimbabweans now realise colonial rule wasn’t all bad. Mugabe, tribalism and getting rid of white farmers has brought a more balanced understanding amongst the native population.

        There is now talk of compensating white framers ( possibly to get them back producing).

        While I hold little hope for the future, if I’m wrong and they get their act together without endemic corruption, Zimbabwe may one day rival South Africa…another country heading towards rack and ruin under black rule.

        • PartisanZ

           /  November 27, 2017

          Colonial rule WAS endemic corruption …

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  November 27, 2017

            Evidence?

            • PartisanZ

               /  November 27, 2017

              It’s self-evident Alan …

              But if you can wade through this Parti-like epistle –

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  November 27, 2017

              Corruption is not the same as racist discriminatory laws. When you cannot trust the police, have to pay bribes to get bureaucrats to do their jobs and have the politicians stealing the nation’s assets for themselves you are in a different hell-hole entirely.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  November 27, 2017

              Don’t forget you are an advocate for racist discriminatory laws and policies favouring a racial minority yourself.

            • Corky

               /  November 27, 2017

              Correct, Alan. I don’t know whether Parti ignores that fact deliberately, or whether he honestly doesn’t see the connection because of ideological blindness… that being nothing good comes from ‘whitey.’ Arrogance, ignorance, duplicity, nepotism and discrimination are all things beyond native folk. Such human defects are the sole preserve of colonialists.

            • PartisanZ

               /  November 27, 2017

              Corky, I don’t say that. I simply counter yours and Alan’s assumptions they are the sole preserve of natives freed from colonialist rule …

              And Alan … Yes, absolutely, a different kind of hell-hole, but a hell-hole nonetheless … although white ruling class privilege largely enabled them to avoid seeing it …

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  November 28, 2017

              “A different kind of hell hole”. Racism, not corruption. And a hell hole in which revolutionaries could earn degrees was probably a considerably better hell hole than most of Africa at that time.

  6. Alan Wilkinson

     /  November 27, 2017

    What do you think the Left would be saying about a lawyer who defended those accused of genocide in Rawanda?

  7. Alan Wilkinson

     /  November 27, 2017

    Audience left shocked by public expression of politically incorrect views on ToW:
    https://yournz.org/2017/11/27/open-forum-monday-154/#comment-234899

      • PDB

         /  November 27, 2017

        Having a differing opinion on that particular subject will see the ‘racist’ tag thrown about…..and the need for safe spaces;

        “One audience member who declined to be named said Sir William’s speech was not well-received and had left some upset.” “”A lot of people were squirming in their seats because the speech was so non PC. It certainly ruffled a lot of feathers.”

        Of course those on the money train were always going to feel a bit uncomfortable: “The man said many in the audience held Māori governance roles”.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  November 27, 2017

          It isn’t about agreement or even debate any more. The speech left some “upset” and “uncomfortable”. This is disturbing language given apparently it was a light hearted speech.
          No-one wants to debate, they only want to vilify him for being old and obsolete (presumably because he hasn’t fallen in to the modern PC group-think norms).

          • PartisanZ

             /  November 27, 2017

            HFD – “It isn’t about agreement or even debate any more”.

            Well, speeches like Sir Gallagher’s really help that cause, don’t they?

            • High Flying Duck

               /  November 27, 2017

              Hard to say. The speech was followed by ad hom statements attacking the man as being a dinosaur.
              No-one even broached the subject matter. It was a disgrace because it was a disgrace apparently.
              We see far too much of this now. People are offended and need safe spaces and there should not be any right to speak about subjects that may be uncomfortable for some.
              I am not getting into the substantive aspects of the speech at all by the way – I personally wouldn’t have the slightest idea as to the veracity of what he is saying.
              And having listened to the virtue signalling vitriol poured upon him, I am still none the wiser. Which is the point I was making.
              Attack the man (or woman) is not a legitimate rebuttal.

            • PartisanZ

               /  November 27, 2017

              Honestly, those kinds of speeches, a la Don Brash’s Orewa speech, do not warrant a rebuttal any more … They’re just keeping us trapped in a totally unproductive loop. But if you want to read a really good general rebuttal, a Maori viewpoint, Ani Mikaere does it extremely well –

              http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/iwi-am04.pdf

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  November 27, 2017

              Mikaere’s attempt to speak for pakeha is as false as my attempt to speak for Maori would be. As if either group could be put into a single basket anyway.

            • PartisanZ

               /  November 28, 2017

              “As if either group could be put into a single basket anyway.”

              Oh my goodness Alan …. I rest my case.

  8. Corky

     /  November 27, 2017

    Brave man.. Lucky he’s towards the end of his life, so it doesn’t really matter.

    Don Brash can fill him in on what to expect. SJWs, Maori gravy trainers, lawyers on perk
    retainers, etc etc stc, will all call him a senile old honky, or more polite words to the effect.

    I need to mention Don Brash again. A really brave man. Don gets crap for his views. The reality is, he’s mainstream. Those many who agree with him unfortunately have been cowered into silence.

    • PartisanZ

       /  November 27, 2017

      Don Brash “mainstream”? Yeah, Right … like the ACT Party!

      That might be why the home page of Hobson’s Pledge has 2.4K [anonymous] likes … up from 1.7K last time I looked … let’s see … that’s … WHOA! … a whopping 0.053% of the population, or 0.068% of the voting-age population … but of course your evidence-based “cowered into silence” takes care of that eh?

      Choose any other page on HP’s website and you find 153 likes, or 74 likes, which tends to imply Brash’s followers don’t look much deeper into the subject …?

      But we must go easy on Sir Gallagher coz it was just a “light-hearted speech”, Right? Like a light-hearted speech or stand-up comedy routine about the Jewish Holocaust … or Kym Koloni’s Torbay Speech for NZFirst during the election campaign … a diatribe any Pauline Hansen would be proud of. By the end of it the audience was chanting “Shame … Shame!”. Pity the courageous business-people audience in Kirikiriroa didn’t grow some balls and do the same …

      Don and his cohorts, including those writers spinning alternative history into the miniscule but self-sustaining Right Brigade marketplace, get a really easy ride for people who are essentially peddling anti-Maori race-hate …

      People like Anahera Herbert-Graves, Hone Harawira and many others get real crap for their views, despite the fact they’re largely reconciliatory by comparison.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  November 27, 2017

        So just what did Gallagher say that was factually incorrect as opposed to unpopular?

        • PartisanZ

           /  November 27, 2017

          Most of it Alan … most of it. I’m not gonna make a list …

          “There is no doubt [Māori] gave up sovereignty …”

          In his mind maybe … but sorry old Sir Gallagher … WRONG! There’s doubt all right and doubt aplenty AND there’s considerable opinion they didn’t cede sovereignty.

          The current best factual, post-colonial interpretation, largely encompassed by and constantly expanded by mainstream academic history, is nowhere near as good polarizing media fodder, but it makes a lot more sense than the neo-colonial anti-Maori race-hate garbage KFL and others peddle, which assumes that mainstream history represents a decades-long, undercover takeover of academia by the Communist Left in a long march through institutions … I mean, do you folks know how stupid that sounds?

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  November 27, 2017

            There was no question that the British believed that was the implication of the Treaty they had drafted and had translated. So did those Maori who opposed it and made their opposition perfectly plain. A majority of Maori decided to sign it anyway as they saw the benefits it offered in return as opposed to the alternative.

            Of course now choosing to deny it transferred sovereignty offers many more potential benefits to the claimants. Despite that it has been clear for well over a century that sovereignty indeed lies with the Crown and with all the people through Parliamentary representation. Denying that is ludicrous as well as futile.

            • PartisanZ

               /  November 27, 2017

              Just the same as, at the time, choosing to believe that it DID transfer sovereignty offered many more potential benefits to the Crown, Church, settlers already present – about 2000 of them – and subsequently believing it for those British and European who followed … until they had a majority and could impose this belief in the form of a government which excluded Maori …

              Choosing to believe the word “kawanatanga” would be understood as “mana” …

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  November 27, 2017

              This is what was actually going on at the time. Right here where I am writing:
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C5%8Dne_Heke

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  November 27, 2017

              Note that Pompallier advised Maori exactly what the implications were before they signed. And the Americans were here too stirring the pot and no friends of the British. It’s utterly ridiculous to pretend the Maori chiefs at Waitangi were not well advised of the implications of British rule and what the English script actually said.

            • PartisanZ

               /  November 27, 2017

              Your Wiki link proves nothing …

              “Following the signing of the treaty the British regarded the authority of the chiefs as subservient to that of the Crown; as the governor asserted the rule of law …”

              This doesn’t tell us how Maori felt and clearly it didn’t take long for them to become “disaffected” …

              What you say is “utterly ridiculous” is only so from an entirely Eurocentric viewpoint. It also assumes the Chiefs, skilled negotiators all in their own realm, had no ‘native’ intelligence …

              You’ve gotta be kidding me … except I know you’re not …

              Pakeha are the one’s who proved by their duplicitous words and actions that they never intended to abide by Te Tiriti …

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  November 27, 2017

              That’s a lot of nonsense, PZ. The article is quite clear Pompallier (French) and Mayhew (USA) both based in Russell and opposed to British rule and with strong connections with Maori were lobbying against the Treaty. It is inconceivable that what British sovereignty would mean was not explained thoroughly from the most adverse perspective by these anti-British factions. That the chiefs were not stupid just reinforces that they would certainly have understood that the Queen was to be their paramount chief.

              You can also tell from the article was that there were specific actions by the British that inspired Heke’s rebellion, it was opposed by other chiefs and it was not an objection to sovereignty itself but to specific administrative actions. Neither do I believe there is evidence the British authorities did not intend to implement the Treaty to the best of their ability. Arguably they managed better than in most other colonies. Inevitably though, clashes of interests and cultures and personalities culminating in violence and injustices followed in its wake.

          • PartisanZ

             /  November 27, 2017

            Here’s another one from Sir Gallagher … This is rich …

            “Before the arrival of Europeans, cannibalism was rife, he said.”

            How do we Europeans know this?

            Te Ara says, “Cannibalism was a feature, as was polygamy.”

            Wiki says, “They developed fortified hillforts known as pā, practiced cannibalism[38][39][40]” citing three references, one being about Hongi Hika 1780 -1828 – pre-and-post contact – one about The Land Wars (many years post-contact) and –

            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/cultures/news/article.cfm?c_id=105&objectid=10462390

            “The real question was why it took place and one thing Professor Moon is sure of is it wasn’t because people were hungry … More likely was the phenomenon of “post-battle rage” … Professor Moon pointed to … unpleasant incidents committed during and after battles in Iraq and a catalogue of atrocities from nearly every major battle of the 20th century”

            Revisionist history no doubt …?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  November 27, 2017

              Cannibalism was rife in Rarotonga where Maori came from. Hardly surprising it came with them. Brutal treatment and killings of slaves were also recorded by the early settlers.

      • PartisanZ

         /  November 27, 2017

        Considerable inflammatory irony in the fact a fencing magnate expresses these views too, considering the role of surveying and fencing in Maori land alienation …?

        But of course that’s not “divisive”. Only hapu iwi Maori not cowering down and assimilating, then winning back some of what they lost is divisive … Indeed, its tantamount to “apartheid”

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  November 27, 2017
          • PartisanZ

             /  November 27, 2017

            Correct, its not an answer. Even I couldn’t have answered sufficiently that quickly … see above …. the post staggered as per ‘answer’ …

            Considerable inflammatory irony was an addendum …

            • PartisanZ

               /  November 27, 2017

              But the purveyors of this crap will always be able to say “That’s not an answer” …

              The idea is to keep us endlessly engaged in the ‘cession of sovereignty’ and ‘Stone-Age Culture’ debate loops, rather than moving on using, perhaps, their much vaunted ‘personal sovereignty’ as a touchstone …

              People just don’t give away sovereignty very easily, do they? Yet we’re expected to believe Maori did, despite the fact they didn’t understand what the other treating party really meant by it …

            • PDB

               /  November 27, 2017

              They were very clear what they were signing, as were those tribes that didn’t.

            • PartisanZ

               /  November 27, 2017

              And you know this how PDB?

              All the Pakeha written records of the event …?

              Yet the Matike Mai report cites numerous examples of direct descendants of signatories who believe very clearly otherwise from their own whanau, hapu iwi oral histories …

              These of course don’t count because they’re not Pakeha and they’re not written down …

              Pakeha have so much to gain and retain by remaining loyal to Eurocentric absurdity … including being trapped in fear … and consigning future generations to the same trap …

              “For Päkehä to gain legitimacy here, it is they who must place their trust in Mäori, not the other way around. They must accept that it is for the
              tangata whenua to determine their status in this land, and to do so in
              accordance with tikanga Mäori. This will involve sorting out a process of
              negotiation which is driven by the principles underpinning tikanga, a
              process which Päkehä do not control” – Ani Mikaere

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  November 27, 2017

          The greatest factor in Maori land alienation in recent times has been the abomination of multiple ownership of Maori Land fostered and prolonged by the Maori Land Court that makes so much of the country useless and unproductive and robs so many of their heritage.

          • PartisanZ

             /  November 27, 2017

            Correct, the foisting and prolonging of the Maori Land Court upon the Maori people is largely to blame …

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  November 27, 2017

              I agree absolutely, PZ. It is an ongoing disgrace and abomination. Sadly I see no urgency on the part of the Waitangi Tribunal to address it.

            • PartisanZ

               /  November 27, 2017

              It’s an abomination largely because the ‘alien’ Pakeha concept of ownership it sought to impose alienated so much Maori land …

              But of course when Maori ‘rebelled’ against this happening there was always ‘ropatu’ as well … the confiscations …

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  November 27, 2017

              No, it’s an abomination because without clear and unencumbered ownership and control nothing can be done. Once the tribal structure and force of command has gone you are left with an impotent vacuum. Individual freedom means no chiefs, no slaves, no followers.

            • PartisanZ

               /  November 27, 2017

              … no hapu, no iwi, no Maori …

              Mission accomplished Alan … “Once the tribal structure and force of command has gone” … which is what the Land Court abomination and other abominations set out to do …

              But we can have essentially ‘tribal’ structures in sport, business and politics …

              Of course things can be done … by Maori how they want to do them … Maori didn’t do nothing before Pakeha arrived …

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  November 27, 2017

              “Of course things can be done … by Maori how they want to do them”

              Not when there are hundreds of owners, mostly absent.

            • PartisanZ

               /  November 28, 2017

              Sure … there is a problem for some …

              but manuka/kanuka forest regenerating native bush that provides native species nursery, firewood and honey resource isn’t “idle” land … unless you’re obsessed with turning everything and everyone into units of production and consumption …

      • Corky

         /  November 27, 2017

        ”Don Brash “mainstream”? Yeah, Right … like the ACT Party!”

        Whoa… easy on. People may not vote ACT, or like Don, or know what Hobson’s Pledge is.
        But I bet you many agree with some points they make about Maori. Remember Don’s Orewa speech?

        ”But we must go easy on Sir Gallagher coz it was just a “light-hearted speech”, Right?”

        I said nothing about it being light hearted. Maybe Gallagher said (?) it was light hearted because he knew he’d be wasting his time to think people may actual take what he said seriously.

        ”Don and his cohorts, including those writers spinning alternative history into the miscue but self-sustaining Right Brigade marketplace, get a really easy ride for people who are essentially peddling anti-Maori race-hate …”

        All Don wants is one law for everyone. Why can’t people of your ilk get that? He wants nothing more. Oh, OK, and some of that bullshit revisionist history peddled by Orange, King and that other chap; et al, challenged in fair debate.

        ”People like Anahera Herbert-Graves, Hone Harawira and many others get real crap for their views, despite the fact they’re largely reconciliatory by comparison.’

        Yeah, well, as long as you aren’t a Pakeha girl being trotted by Hones’s son, you may have a point. White mo-fuggers? Simple slip of the tongue. Whanau violence by Hone’s mum towards mentally ill folk? Well, she was convicted in court. But we know that doesn’t count because it’s white mans justice.

        Meanwhile, Don doodles along. Easy meat for the likes of you.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  November 27, 2017

          Sir William, not Sir Gallagher.

          He was Mr Gallagher, now he’s Sir William Gallagher, and his wife is Lady Gallagher even though the silly showoff calls herself Lady Judi as if she was the daughter of a duke or earl and born with a title in her own right.Their house is vulgarity incarnate.

          • PartisanZ

             /  November 27, 2017

            Oh do tell ALL Miss Kitty …

            I apologize profusely for my slight derision. It’s just that, under the circumstances, I feel slightly derisive towards him …

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  November 28, 2017

              Do look at the front page of the Waikato Times today if you want a larf; the Gallagher mansion is there in all its glory. Mrs G has called it Chateau Fleur de Lis. I am not making this up. How twee can one be ? She says (believe it or not) that it’s a (her words) French chateau (as if there could be any other kind) and that she designed it as a ‘castle for her knight’. Pass the bucket. The description of it as a ‘French chateau’ has caused some mirth among those who know what these are, It’s a Trumpesque copy of one-like something from a bad film.

              The terrible thing is that inside it are the remains of a lovely, gracious 30s house that was gutted and vandalised and added to by that silly social climber. She is a standing joke around here.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  November 28, 2017

              They have a fullsized billiard room; need I say more ?

              The house covers that part of the hillside. How to ruin a neighbourhood-no sour grapes, but I would not want to live near it…it is totally out of place in that area where the houses are mostly of one era; those elegant 20s & 30s houses.. The neighbours must shudder when they see it, and as for the view from the lake itself !!! it looks as if the house has melted and is running down the hill. I hope it does.

        • PartisanZ

           /  November 27, 2017

          I should have made clear I was addressing HFD as well, who came to Sir Gallagher’s defense, like PDB, before anyone had even attacked him (on here) and barely at all in the Stuff article …

          HFD said “This is disturbing language given apparently it was a light-hearted speech”.

          What does that mean? That Sir Gallagher’s intention it be light-hearted means we all must take it so? Why? Would that be because he’s a Knight of the Realm?

          Don Brash doesn’t doodle along. He Trumps. Trump probably got inspiration from Don’s Orewa speech …?

          “All Don wants is one law for everyone” … Yes, and that One Law must be the English Law imposed upon Maori by Pakeha, despite the fact that arguably Te Tiriti makes provision for two laws … Kawanatanga and Rangitiratanga …

          You can leave people’s personal lives out of it Corky. Everyone’s got one, including ‘Don’ …

          By comparison to Don those people are reconciliatory in the realm of the Treaty relationship …

          • Corky

             /  November 27, 2017

            Please zip it, Kitty. You are pedantic and annoying.

            • Corky

               /  November 27, 2017

              ”All Don wants is one law for everyone” … Yes, and that One Law must be the English Law imposed upon Maori by Pakeha, despite the fact that arguably Te Tiriti makes provision for two laws … Kawanatanga and Rangitiratanga …”

              Correct. One law for all New Zealanders. We can’t progress otherwise. Unless you want a two tier justice system that sees me given certain advantages in judicial law you don’t have.

              Te Tiriti : Which one? I reckon the Littlewood draft has a lot going for it.

              ”You can leave people’s personal lives out of it Corky. Everyone’s got one, including ‘Don’ …”

              Sure. I just wanted to show you using the word ”reconciliatory ” jars with reality.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  November 28, 2017

            I was actually talking on a different tack Parti.

            The comment about disturbing language was around the described reaction of some attendees.
            Whatever the subject matter, the fact that some saw the speech as “upsetting” shows that reasoned debate and the ability to at least acknowledge different viewpoints is being eroded.
            Disagree, and disagree vehemently, if you so wish. But don’t say the speech should never have been made because of how it made some people ‘feel’.

            Also it is important to always attack the message and not the messenger. The Ad Hom responses were unhelpful.

  9. Alan Wilkinson

     /  November 27, 2017

    More politically incorrect facts and opinions:
    http://www2.nzherald.co.nz/the-country/news/article.cfm?c_id=16&objectid=11948403

    Irrigation is good for the environment! Water should be used and not wasted! Shoot that scientist.

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  November 27, 2017

      Groan. She will be having bricks through her window from the Greens. Great article. Alan.

      No dogs can swim in the lake near me, but the pollution is because of coal deposits under it. Nothing can be done about this, it wouldn’t be practical. It doesn’t affect the fish or waterbirds.

  10. lurcher1948

     /  November 27, 2017

    Some decent music NOT involving trump and the departed late national part, nice really

    • patupaiarehe

       /  November 28, 2017

      Well done Lurch, good choice. My good friend Winston told me he called you the other day, and that you ‘dissed’ him. What’s up with that???

  11. lurcher1948

     /  November 27, 2017

    Farrars posts on kiwiblog are showing real signs of desperation, posting about trivial subjects, and the inmates’ opps bloggers posts are REALLY agitated, sad really after 9 years of the labour coalition, most will have passed caused by stress…

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  November 27, 2017

      The occasional ones I’ve seen show more signs of glee than desperation, Lurch.

    • Corky

       /  November 28, 2017

      Bad day today for Labour, Lurchy.