Open Forum – 24 January

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, or you think may interest others.. 

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. If they pass muster they will be released as soon as possible (it can sometimes take hours).

Leave a comment

74 Comments

    • duperez

       /  24th January 2020

      Did you mean ‘Allegations about how the Democrats crooked up the impeachment allegations’?

      I ask that as the link starts with making assumptions about who the whistleblower was and goes from there.

      The tone is less “grab a rope and hang the whistleblower” that might be Tumpeted but has the same intent.

      As has been said before though, if a whistleblower forwarded information that someone like say, Ministry of Transport fraudster Joanne Harrison was involved in something untoward, should the information be ignored, discounted and no investigations made? Or should it be accorded attention relative to the motivation of the whistleblower? If that person blew merely out of jealousy that she got the job rather than them the information doesn’t really count?

      Does it matter how investigations come to be started?

      ‘Crooked’ up? If someone passed on information of crooked stuff Harrison was doing out of personal animosity is that ‘crooking’ up? Or should the ‘crook’ part be hers alone? Same as in the Trump situation although he won’t be found to be guilty so he will be able to claim to be proven to not be a crook.

      https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-investigations/

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  24th January 2020

        There’s little doubt the “whistle-blower” was as named and well-embedded in Team Democrat.

        As I noted before, their outrage preceded the nominal events that are their justification for their impeachment actions. The public are entitled to know what is cause and what is effect.

        Reply
        • duperez

           /  24th January 2020

          An effect of someone being found guilty of something is negated or diminished by the whistleblower being motivated by antipathy, psychosis, whatever?

          Or simply, it’s nice to pause afterwards and muse that was an interesting element?

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  24th January 2020

            An effect of a political party moving to exploit its majority to impeach its opponent thereby acting as both accuser and judge. Let’s not sanitise the matter, duperez.

            Reply
            • duperez

               /  24th January 2020

              I agree, let’s not sanitise the matter. Regardless of how it got there, what is alleged is correct.🙂

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  24th January 2020

              That’s exactly the mindset of the Left, duperez. Stalin would approve.

            • duperez

               /  24th January 2020

              I like how you pick up a rubber stamp like an old Post Master and press a meaningless proforma Left comment to put a finalising full stop.

              I realise you know I’m easy to lose, but the finis lost me. Someone blows the whistle on (say) Joanne Harrison, investigations are made and the claims are found to be true. The whistleblower only passed in the information on because they were peed off because (say) she’d had an affair with their husband.

              Regardless of how it got to be publicly controversial what is alleged by the whistleblower was found to be correct. The mindset of the Left would be satisfaction and Stalin would approve?

              And those on the Right wouldn’t approve? And fine leaders of the right ilk like Trump wouldn’t?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  24th January 2020

              Maybe I misunderstood you, duperez, but you appeared to be claiming all the Democrats’ allegations against Trump are indisputably correct.

              Well, no. They are disputed but would certainly have been indisputable if made by the likes of Stalin’s regime.

            • That’s easily resolved. The Republicans have a 53 to 47 majority in the Senate: they can call the witnesses whenever they choose. Get the Bidens in there, get Bolton in there, Sondland, Mulvaney, Yovanovitch. Get ‘em all in.

              Do what any innocent defendant would do: call the witnesses and table the exculpatory evidence.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  25th January 2020

              Could yet happen, Ishmael, though Biden has refused to testify. Schiff too no doubt and his co-conspirators.

      • Duker

         /  24th January 2020

        The real clincher was that Trump was sending his personal lawyer not a government official to Kiev to shake the trees over Bidens son .
        Not really a ‘interest in stopping corruption’ in Ukraine at all. It wasnt part of his ‘war on corruption’ or something

        It was the reverse the endemic Corruption in Ukraine was being bought back to US under Trumps command.

        Strange situation that Mueller couldnt indict a sitting President, which he would have if allowed, as apparently thats Congress job to do so.

        Reply
  1. lurcher1948

     /  24th January 2020

    Morning folks, one of life’s little joys is to read the rants on nearby rightwing blogs and try to get an insight into the thinking and this pearl was posted today…part of a rant

    A 20-year-old girl is sentenced to home detention, and worse, is humiliated by having her photo and details published in the media. Her supposed crime? Having sex with a boy aged fifteen and a half – that is six months short of being able to have legal sexual relations. What a hypocritical, mad society we have become

    let’s reverse the roles,20 yo male vie 15 yo girl both scenarios, illegal male sexual predator
    the poor girl appears a sexual predator and must be ugly as sin as her parents approved of the sex WTF and, finally what real righty approves of a possible unplanned pregnancy and the cost of a benefit

    .

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  24th January 2020

      The reported facts of the case surely invite some wtf incredulity:
      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12303041

      Reply
      • It’s just as much a crime for an adult to have sex with an underage partner if the adult’s a woman, but the odds against the woman going to prison for this are much higher than they are against a man, even if his partner/s happen to be willing. But there’s still a real double standard.

        I once saw an SVU episode where a teenage school pupil accused a male teacher of molesting him. Dad had the teacher beaten up, the teacher lost his job….the boy later admitted that he’d been seduced by an attractive female teacher. Dad’s reaction was more or less phwoar, lucky sod. This attitude appears to widespread in real life.

        Had this young woman been Oliver Bambery who’d been having sex with a 15 year old girl, I wonder if the sentence would be the same. Two other stories of adults (men) having sex with underage girls who were consenting suggests not, they went to prison.

        A woman who did a sex act on her baby and videoed it to sell for porn did not go to prison. I bet that the father would have had he done it.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  24th January 2020

          The bit that got me was the bizarre claim his parents approved her sleeping in his bed because they didn’t expect anything to happen. Hello???

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  24th January 2020

            The parents must have been a bit thick.

            I can’t see my mother letting my brother at 15 share a bed with a girl of 20 under the illusion that nothing would happen.

            Reply
  2. Duker

     /  24th January 2020

    Too rich as ex Speaker Bercow now claims its ‘centuries of convention, meant that retired Speakers get a peerage.
    Where was the centuries of Convention he talks about when he decided that he should come down on the side of the remainers in House of Commons. instead of the convention to be a neutral referee.
    No knighthood , no peerage …good riddance

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peerages_created_for_Speakers_of_the_House_of_Commons
    Not so long ago they would have been made a hereditary Viscount

    Now its ex all blacks coaches which get knighthoods on retirement

    Reply
    • Missy

       /  24th January 2020

      The following is a quote from Bercow when he was ignoring precedent:

      “If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change.”

      It was said at the time that this could be used against him, and I believe it has been. The Government are looking to change things. 🙂

      What would be delicious revenge is if the current speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle) gets a peerage. He is very fair and upholds the impartiality of the Speaker’s role, he did for years as deputy speaker and so far there is nothing to indicate that will change. He has a lot of respect.

      Reply
    • duperez

       /  24th January 2020

      And Speakers of the House when they get out of the place. When will Carter pull the pin? I wouldn’t be surprised if he pulls out this year. It could depend on the polls. A chance he’d get his old role back might keep him there. The likelihood of them not? ‘Arise Sir David’ might appeal.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  24th January 2020

        Carter wont be back into the Speakers chair as Tolley is doing that job as a deputy Speaker now and apparently was promised the job…one day.
        Carter doesnt need the money as hes $$$$$$ …he was the guy when he went after a seat and was selected had it overturned by the party …one can only imagine why he thought he could rig it…or was that the common way and he got caught

        NBR puts Rangitikei MP Ian McKelvie as the only sitting MP on its ‘rich list’ The Carters have their money spread around the wider family.
        Why would you even waste 10 years of your life like that as a minor MP

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  24th January 2020

          People don’t just do it for the money. Of all the MPs and ministers whom I have known, only one was earning less before. That was a physiotherapist.

          There was a saying that becoming an MP meant a payrise for Labour MPs and a pay drop for National ones.

          Reply
          • Pickled Possum

             /  24th January 2020

            Hiya Miss Can you tell me where is Gezza?

            Reply
            • Corky

               /  24th January 2020

              I have been wondering the same thing. He is missed by many.

              Hey, I see Shane Jones called Tania Newton a ”putiputi.” Chur, that will set the cat amongst the Wood Pigeons. Maori humbug is afoot as the old people would say.

            • Missy

               /  25th January 2020

              Hey PP, I don’t know, I haven’t been around for several months myself.

              I hope he is just on holiday and will be back.

          • Duker

             /  25th January 2020

            Have you seen many of Nats new candidates , apart from Luxon, many are part of the PR- party- communications industry, one is an ex RNZ reporter and previous Beehive drone. Another is a Christchurch city councillor.
            Those nats who have a business keep it going, as they can work on many issues while an MP

            Reply
    • Blazer

       /  24th January 2020

      and ex Nat P.M’s no matter how useless they were.

      Reply
  3. Missy

     /  24th January 2020

    I know I have been away for a while, (due to family matters), however I am hoping I will be here more regularly now. I hope everyone had a great christmas and new year.

    First I want to apologise for not being able to report on the election campaign last year, and more importantly the reactions to first the exit polls then the actual result! It was great to see Boris win, and Corbyn take Labour to its biggest defeat since the 1930’s. It was an interesting campaign, and the fallout in Labour (and to a small extent the Lib Dems) is continuing, and will for much of the first part of this year. I will look at doing a summary of the Labour leader election so far at the weekend.

    Most importantly today is a great day in the history of the UK. The Withdrawal Agreement Bill passed third reading yesterday, (with no amendments), and today received Royal Assent, and is now law. The UK will be leaving the EU on Friday 31 January at 11.00pm GMT. A party has been planned for Parliament Square with a light show and recorded bongs from Big Ben (currently removed for renovation). The UK has 11 months of a transition period in which they hope to secure an initial Free Trade Agreement with the EU (interesting fact: the senior negotiator is a Brit/Kiwi dual national who negotiated a lot of NZ’s FTAs). On 31 December the UK will leave the transition period and be completely free. For those wondering the transition period applies predominantly to trade and Free Movement, the UK will leave all political institutions next week.

    An exciting time to be in the UK, and happily I will be as my visa has been extended for a further two years! Yay!! 🙂

    Generally speaking I don’t expect this year to be as exciting in UK politics as the last few years has been for a number of reasons, but mostly due to the Conservatives large majority and the fact that the trade negotiations will be done out of the public and political spotlight. In saying that there will be some local elections in May, including the election for the London Mayor. Now that should be interesting. Khan the hypocrite up against failed Conservative Leadership candidate Rory Stewart and a unknown Conservative (and some others that are rather forgettable).

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  24th January 2020

      I hope Johnson’s Government lives up to its rhetoric. If so, it should be sufficiently exciting for me.

      Good to see you back, Missy.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  24th January 2020

        I see for the Trade Agreement the EU is up to its old tricks.
        First they want the Fishing Agreement all done and sorted ‘before’ they do the Trade talks. Thats where UK has the advantage as their own waters are so large compared to others in the area. But EU knows it has to put those sorts of things in a box so there is nothing to do ‘quid pro quo’ with on other issues.
        This time Johnston has learnt something from the arch remainers and has all the ‘ full and final leaving’ passed now which cant be hijacked again in the Commons with new legislation , or even to the extent of ‘blowing up parliament’ to try and get a ‘single market’ agreement done. As for the Lords they will be sent to Newcastle or something while Westminster has its renovation to give the Lords something to really complain about . They will be begging to go to Birmingham instead.

        Reply
      • Missy

         /  25th January 2020

        Thanks Alan.

        And we are all hoping Johnson’s Government can live up to the rhetoric.

        I think if he manages half of what he wants to do he will easily be re-elected, and of course if Labour do end up electing a Corbyn sycophant then some are predicting Johnson could have three terms.

        Reply
  4. Alan Wilkinson

     /  24th January 2020

    Having successfully wrecked the housing market under Clark, Labour has moved on under Ardern to wreck the rental market. Rents rising faster than ever, single-handedly pushing up inflation:
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12303101

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  24th January 2020

      really going full bore on horse shyte today Al.
      Inflation erupted under 9 years of National…neglect.

      Lay off the lemon sucking.

      Reply
    • Duker

       /  24th January 2020

      One government helped a big number of new homes built in 9 years, one government did not in its 9 years despite ramping up migration ( without the Christchurch rebuild nationals numbers would be even more pitiful.)

      I see too that Stats is revising down its migration tallys from last year, as they werent catching all departures . Its now around 40,000

      Reply
  5. Zedd

     /  24th January 2020

    I hear that MrT is talking about opening up/removing restriction on streams, rivers & wetlands, so that chemical companies can turn them into open sewers.. another economic victory for the smug capitalist b@st%rd !

    https://www.democracynow.org/

    opening news items.. :/

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  24th January 2020

      If it’s this story it’s all historic, nothing factual about Trump:
      https://www.democracynow.org/2020/1/23/poisoned_water_corporate_greed_attorney_robert

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  24th January 2020

        Nope Wrong story
        https://www.npr.org/2020/01/23/799004274/trump-epa-dramatically-reduces-amount-of-waterways-under-federal-protection

        The new water rule for the first time in decades allow landowners and property developers to dump pollutants such as pesticides and fertilizers directly into hundreds of thousands of waterways, and to destroy or fill in wetlands for construction projects.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  24th January 2020

          Oh, surely not !!! How can anyone be so stupid ? Even if people see nothing sacrosanct about the environment, don’t they think that this is a bad business practice?

          Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  24th January 2020

          Mischaracterisation. He hasn’t changed the rule, just which waterways are under federal rather than state control.

          The Left only like decentralisation when it suits them. Local people are in a far better place to manage their small local waterways.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  25th January 2020

            No its not . Its going to be open slater, and ‘local’ waterways run into …..bigger streams and rivers . Thats how it works. But the companies will say its ‘within rules’ outside our backdoor so no longer our problem downstream

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  25th January 2020

              Is there some actual reason a remote federal government will do a better job than the local state government and be more responsive to what the people immediately affected want?

            • Duker

               /  25th January 2020

              Its a consistent national standard thats needed , its logical as rivers run through different counties and into different states. Texas is pretty big , even the state capital is pretty remote for many residents… those states can be inconsistent about ‘local’ as they want to over rule democratic controlled cities on local issues on education , immigration, etc

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  25th January 2020

              So the answer was no.

              “A consistent national standard” = ignore local needs and issues. We’ve seen how well that’s working out for the EU.

        • thats the one.. chrz

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  25th January 2020

            Nowadays it’s a doddle to compile information.

            It’s insane to let one state pollute waterways that go into others. It should be all or nothing.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  25th January 2020

              Depends on all kinds of things. You could equally say it is silly to have the same standards for all water no matter what its volume and use. Standards have costs.

              And note the Dutch sit at the end of the Rhine after other countries have used it for manufacturing, agriculture and transport and then purify it for drinking.

  6. Corky

     /  24th January 2020

    The Ratana charade has started with the PM pulling out all stops.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12303264

    Meanwhile, Simon knows he’s spoilt for choice…as long as he doesn’t sign up to that Facebook bs.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12303180

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  25th January 2020

      That BS that is compulsory in UK and US ?
      Thats not good enough for the lying Nats is it?
      And doesnt NZ election Law mean an election ad need a promoter statement, whats different is whos paying and how much

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  25th January 2020

        ”That’s not good enough for the lying Nats is it?”

        What the hell are you on about? It’s a voluntary choice in NZ, and I hope Simon DOESN’T sign. The Nats don’t need virtual signalling as part of their campaign strategy. What they need is a cute baby. Maybe they can hire one?

        Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  25th January 2020

        Duker, there’s a limit to how much a party can spend on election ads and posters.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  25th January 2020

          The limit is far higher than most parties spend, so its not really a cap.
          Why cant the nats be transparent about their facebook ads, what are they hiding

          The Nats will try and hide their support of fake parties or pressure groups, who they will fund.

          Reply
          • Corky

             /  25th January 2020

            ”Why can’t the nats be transparent about their Facebook ads, what are they hiding?”

            They are hiding lush funding and powerful connections that want this gummint gone.

            Tory business is Tory business..and not yours.

            Reply
  7. Corky

     /  24th January 2020

    If this is true it will be a reflection of what is bound to happen in NZ should Labour receive another term office.

    https://www.albiontimes.co.uk/frenchman-sentenced-to-2-months-jail-after-calling-mass-immigration-an-invasion/

    Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  25th January 2020

        The Frenchman has been given a two month suspended sentence for inciting racial tension and calling immigration an invasion, which it isn’t; immigrants everywhere need permission to live in the new country. Invasion by definition is not done by people who apply for residence. If it was, the Germans in both world wars were immigrants.

        Sonny Bill Williams has a two year contract in Canada. He is not an immigrant.

        He doesn’t want to wear a logo of a sponsor that goes against his religious beliefs and from the sound of it, this will be accommodated.It’s happened before in sport. Much ado about nothing.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  25th January 2020

          And the logo issue has been solved without conflict, he won’t wear it and the company accepts this as does everyone else.

          Reply
      • Corky

         /  25th January 2020

        Yep, Europe would no doubt agree with Kitty. They have everything under control.

        Of course we could play semantics..but why bother.

        Quote:

        ”New arrivals are ticking up again, but Europe doesn’t even have a short-term plan in place—much less a long-term strategy.”

        I think I will side with the Frenchman.

        https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/27/the-european-union-needs-to-prepare-for-the-next-wave-of-migrants/

        Sonny Bill is of course a metaphor for Western Kow-towing to Islam.

        ”Much ado about nothing?”

        I’m sure there was more than one Roman who thought their empire was safe too.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  25th January 2020

          Don’t put words in my mouth and invent things that I have supposedly said or thought; I never said that ‘Europe’ had anything/everything under control. You forget that what I actually said is there in print to give you the lie.

          You seem unaware that Europe is not one place but a number of different countries. Each one has a different language, culture and government. And there is no point in giving an unattributed quotation.

          The idea that one person is a metaphor for a non-existent ‘western kowtowing to Islam because of a sponsor’s name on a footy jersey is too ridiculous to take seriously. So is the pointless reference to Rome.

          Reply
        • Corky

           /  26th January 2020

          When the cupboard is bare…inanities are the order of the day.

          1- Europe is made up of a number of different countries. ( so is the EU)
          2- Ignoring sarcasm (I think?)
          3-Rejecting a great example of Western Kowtowing.
          (I wonder how a non Muslim would fair?)
          4- Pointless reference to Rome.??!! That means our modern civilisation is littered with pointless references to Rome. Some people refuse to learn from history either through ignorance or stupidity. That of course is why Europe has a migrant crisis.

          Reply
  8. Corky

     /  25th January 2020

    Crime on the increase. Of course it is. Labour believes in the softly softly approach. Someone needs to remind Labour that a product of crime is victims and ruined lives.

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2020/01/crime-up-police-data-shows.html

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  25th January 2020

      Its normally up each year….but this we have a government who are increasing police numbers not freezing them, selling police cars, cutting budgets of the crown prosecutors

      and you should read your links sometimes, as it says the opposite of what you think
      ” police said the rise in serious assault victimisations – up almost 40 percent – was actually linked to the “introduction of the new family violence offences in December 2018”, and was offset by a fall in common assault victimisations. “

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  25th January 2020

        ”Its normally up each year….but this we have a government who are increasing police numbers not freezing them, selling police cars, cutting budgets of the crown prosecutors.”

        The police numbers have been massaged a LITTLE. For example the number of retiring police was conveniently left out of this equation. That said, I agree with you. National, while harder on crime in general, is weak like Labour when it comes to really taking it to ferals and getting on top of crime once and for all.

        ”And you should read your links sometimes, as it says the opposite of what you think.”

        Really?🤔

        Police said the rise in serious assault victimisations – up almost 40 percent – was actually linked to the “introduction of the new family violence offences in December 2018”, and was offset by a fall in common assault victimisations. “

        So crime in reality is up 40% thanks to new legislation. As to common assault stats dropping. Don’t you believe it. People are just not reporting assaults. What’s the point? Police inaction
        and a perp who may bash you again for narking is probably behind the drop in numbers.

        Time for Raptor Squad, the rattan and a government with balls.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  25th January 2020

          Crime overall is not up 40%. Read the article again.

          Family violence has been reclassified. Thus some assaults have been classed as that.

          Where does it say that people are not reporting assaults ?

          People don’t bother to report some crimes; we didn’t when someone came in and stole all our solar lights.

          Reply
        • Duker

           /  25th January 2020

          The police numbers have increased, something like 800 more in number than at election time. Retired has nothing to do with , as cops leave or retire all the time…the rest of your comments are beacause …it’s that time of the day again…

          Reply
          • Corky

             /  26th January 2020

            ”The rest of your comments are beacause …it’s that time of the day again…”

            Genius of unfathomable depth. Deep as a Oregon hydro dam.😂

            Reply
        • Corky

           /  25th January 2020

          ”He called the increase “staggering”, but police said the rise in serious assault victimisations – up almost 40 percent – was actually linked to the “introduction of the new family violence offences in December 2018″, and was offset by a fall in common assault victimisations. ”

          ”Family violence has been reclassified. Thus some assaults have been classed as that.”

          Yep , I get it. It’s as clear as mud. We must also repair to this change in stats in future to obtain a true measure of the situation.

          ”Where does it say that people are not reporting assaults ?”

          I say people are not reporting assaults. Just like I told this blog gang numbers are going through the roof before media was even reported that stat. I know because I live in the real world. I doubt Kitty has ever seen a ‘boot party.’

          So if I’m right about common assaults not being reported..and I am, then that calls into question the stats in this story.

          Reply
    • Blazer

       /  25th January 2020

      that’s a very deep ,complex of guilt you harbour ..Corky.

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  26th January 2020

        You are very good at painting narratives feeble minded folk may fall for, Blazer. Like your ilk
        who enjoy denigrating the SST. Isn’t it funny (?) that Righties are meant to be unsympathetic. Labours treatment of Maori shows that definitely isn’t the case. I’m not claiming any moral high ground here, except to say, in a sane society crime victims should come first…scumbags a distant second.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s