The Royal Prank Call…Where to from here?

December 10, 2012 By

I am looking at the story about DJs at the centre of the royal prank call trying to figure the whole thing out.

It seems that like many radio announcers in the past they made a call, which got to a place it shouldn’t have, they took the piss, it was cleared by not only management, but the company lawyers, and the call went to air.

The process wouldn’t have gotten a second look other than two factors…it was about the future Queen and her unborn child, and someone involved with the call has now killed themselves.

I am terribly upset for the family of Jacintha Saldanha, her friends and colleagues, it is a situation that must be unbearable. I also feel, albeit not on the same level, sorry for the announcers who basically did their jobs, were cleared by management, and now have death threats and the world wanting their blood.

It seems to be a ‘there but for the grace of God‘ situation that many of us, who have done this kind of thing, could have been put in.

Here is an example of a crank call I made in 2005/06 when I got the Grosvenor of the Reserve Bank out of an important meeting to ask him how the changing of the size of the silver coins was going to impact my ‘takeaway and spacies‘ business over summer.

I got to a place I shouldn’t have, if the person who answered the phone and put me through was the subject of some kind of disciplinary action I would have probably made news…but that didn’t happen.

I am interested in seeing if there is any kind of history of suicide attempts or depression in Ms. Saldanha’s life as this situation on it’s own, where she didn’t give out any information and she wasn’t going to be disciplined in any way, leads me to think that perhaps this story is yet to be told in its entirety.

Filed Under: 2DAYFM, Mel Greig, Michael Christian, Prank Call, Royal Tagged With: , ,

Smacking in the headlines…again!

June 3, 2012 By

So here is the story in from the Sunday Star Times. Opponents of the ‘anti-smacking’ law say this is a good example of how good parents are being criminalised for parenting…I would disagree and have three thoughts at the end to back my position.

A  mum’s “considered decision” to strap her son led to an assault conviction, and a judge told her that thinking about it first made it worse than if she’d done it in anger.

The woman and her partner, both South Island teachers, were convicted after they strapped their 8-year-old son, over his pyjamas, with a belt in January last year.

But after taking their case all the way to the Court of Appeal, they were discharged without conviction.

Anti-smacking law critics say the case is an example of good parents being criminalised, contrary to assurances from politicians when the law came in.

Named H and G in court papers to protect their son, the pair told the Sunday Star-Times the boy had a history of behavioural difficulties, had seen psychiatrists, and the family had approached Child Youth and Family.

When he was discovered for a second time doing “something that put another child’s health at risk”, they said it was the “straw that broke the camel’s back”.

“I felt like I had gone down all the right channels. He did it again. I thought what else can I do to try to get him to realise it’s not acceptable behaviour?” H said.

She asked her partner to give the boy the strap that night. “We talked to our son so he knew why. We needed him to know it wasn’t OK.”

A CYF worker was told a few weeks later, and police were notified. They interviewed H, who was told it was “highly unlikely” the case would go to court. But police went to the school a few days later and she and her partner were charged that night.

H said they pleaded guilty and applied for discharges without conviction to avoid putting the boy through a trial.

Judge Tony Zohrab denied the applications, saying “the fact it was a considered decision to assault him” was an aggravating factor. They both lost their jobs because of the convictions, and the boy was sent to live with other family.

H said the decision was “backwards”. “The judge almost said if you had done it in anger, it would have been better.”

They appealed, and her partner got a discharge without conviction in the High Court, but her offending was deemed worse because she had told police she had used a wooden spoon on the boy in the past.

H then went to the Court of Appeal, where the judges said they had “considerable sympathy” for her.

Justices O’Regan, Arnold and Randerson said H was dealing with a child with identifiable behavioural problems, and an incident any parent would have found challenging to deal with.

“She had sought appropriate expert assistance with the child, and had utilised a range of non-physical measures to address behaviour.

“While not condoning the use of physical violence for disciplinary purposes, the actions taken by G at H’s request were at the lower end of the scale.”

The court said the assault was “over clothing and involved, at most, one or two hits with a belt being used as a strap”.

The judges ruled Zohrab had erred in “overstating the gravity of the offending”, and the consequences – particularly losing their jobs – were out of proportion.

H said she was overjoyed at being discharged after “a year-and-a-half of hell”.

She said when the anti-smacking law was introduced she thought it would stop people from abusing their children. “I didn’t for a second think I would get criminalised.”

Family First director Bob McCroskie said the case showed the law “coming home to roost”.

“This mother has had her career damaged, lost income and faced legal fees, and it’s caused irreparable damage to the family.

“She was honest, asked for help, went to professionals who never came running with assistance – but were quick to prosecute.”

“The warning to all good parents from this is to be careful what they admit.”

Police criminal investigations national manager Detective Superintendent Rod Drew said a review of smacking investigation figures showed discretion was being used.

“It’s a matter of degree. Generally speaking, the use of a weapon to hit a child is unacceptable.”

The law allowed reasonable force to be used, but “reasonable” was not defined.

Okay, here are my thoughts as to me, this story means one of three things.

Possibility One: The system works as this mother and father didn’t end up with a criminal conviction as the original conviction was overturned thus meaning that no one here can claim that this is a case of ‘good parents being criminalised’…because they weren’t.

Possibility Two: There is a rogue judge in the system who is using the law incorrectly and therefore this isn’t a reflection on the law…but how that judge applied it.

Possibility Three: The overturning of the criminal act was wrong, and the original judge was correct. I wonder how many parenting groups, lobby groups, parenting advocates would be okay with the use of an implement such as a strap and/or belt to smack a child with?

I would also add one more thought to this from my own personal point of view.

I wonder what happens next time there is a need to correct, or discipline, this child…what then? Do we get the strap again? Do we need to elevate ‘correction’ to something else?

Personally I think using a belt on a child, for whatever reason, is assault, it’s probably where I will depart from my ‘fence-sitting’ on this  issue in the past. I see no legal, moral or ‘parenting’ reason why using a strap on a child should, could or ever would be anything other than the reason as to why this law was brought in which promotes one more question…what’s the point? If the law was brought in to stop people using these kinds of ‘techniques’ for discipline, and parents are still doing it…and getting away with it…then what’s the point.

 

Filed Under: Assault, Bob McCoskrie, Court, Court of Appeal, Discipline, Parenting, Smacking Tagged With: , , ,

Police raids seem…no longer picky!

March 23, 2012 By

Well after my bitchy post yesterday about the disparity between the police raiding a community with allegations, and leaving alone an establishment that is flouting the law it was interesting to see this article on stuff.co.nz

Police have raided an Auckland warehouse where pro-cannabis activists were allegedly selling the drug from a vending machine.

Four people were arrested and police seized $27,000 cash, cannabis and drug paraphernalia from the New Lynn Daktory last night.

The raid comes after Auckland Now revealed yesterday people could buy one gram bags of cannabis for $20 from the vending machine at the clubhouse. Police seized the machine last night.

Police said there were 20 people at the Delta Ave property at the time of the raid.

A backpack containing the cash was found, along with half a kilo of pre-packaged cannabis. Police also seized a “large assortment” of utensils, bongs, pipes, spotting knives and loose cannabis.

Three men and one woman were arrested and charged with various drug-related offences, including possession of cannabis and possession for supply. They will appear in the Waitakere District Court on Wednesday.

Waitemata Detective Inspector Bruce Scott said police would continue to monitor activities at the Daktory.

Bravo police, it’s about consistency, I applaud you

Filed Under: Dakta Green, Daktory, Julian Crawford, Marijuana, Norml, Police Tagged With: ,

NZ Government ‘kowtowed’ to the US over Dotcom

March 23, 2012 By

Yesterday Barrister Gary Gotlieb stated in court that NZ ‘kowtowed’ to American business interests in the case against Kim Dotcom.

This statement comes amongst revelations that the seizure of Dotcoms property was illegal because “police applied for the wrong kind of order” according to Justice Potter

Kim Dotcome has been granted $60,000 per month to live off, access to his 2011 Mercedes and the crown needs to pay him $5,000 for legal costs to sort out the incorrect seizure of his goods.

In court yesterday Barrister Gary Gotlieb stated.

”Someone else in the world will be doing it, and simply to bend towards business interests in America, which is really what it’s about, kowtowing to business interests in America, I would have thought would not sit comfortably with many New Zealanders.”

And for me I agree with much of this statement,

When I interviews a retired FBI agent of 32 years who looked at the case for me, he stated quite plainly that the case came from the Motion Picture Association of America amongst other, they complained and the FBI sprang into action.

Crown lawyer Anne Toohey said that American was not controlling this extradition situation, it is handled under crown law

”Every day we get requests for forms of assistance from all countries all over the world, including restraint of assets, execution of search warrants and that manner of thing. For us it is really daily business.”

This still has the feeling of American sneezing and the NZ catching a cold to me, I hope it’s proven otherwise but I will continue to follow this case with great interest.

Filed Under: Anne Toohey, Copyright, FBI, Gary Gotlieb, Justice Potter, Kim Dotcom, Media, MegaUpload, Police Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Police raids seem…picky in whom they raid

March 22, 2012 By

Seems interesting to me that the Police will raid a mostly Maori community looking for several alleged offenders, but when a group comes out overtly breaking the law their punishment is a nice wee story about their criminal activity in the paper.

New Zealand’s first cannabis club, the Daktory, has been using the machine – which sells one gram bags of cannabis for $20 – at it’s New Lynn headquarters to avoid any of their members being charged with dealing the Class C drug.

The hired vending machine is a standard dispenser but has been filled with cannabis rather than confectionery or toys.

The Daktory was opened in November 2008 and boasted a membership of several thousand before its founder Dakta Green was jailed for eight months for possessing, selling and for allowing the Delta Ave warehouse to be used for drug taking in June 2011

The story from stuff.co.nz goes on

The Daktory announced it was closing its doors to the public and would be used as the headquarters for the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (Norml).

But Norml president Julian Crawford confirmed the club was again open for business from Wednesday to Sunday.

He said the vending machine had been a hit with guests with ”a few hundred sales” taking place on busy nights.

”It has been very popular, quite a few people come here.”

So where is the police raid here? Or even a single police officer sidling up and pointing out the criminal activity, that is admitted to, should really be stopped…and if not stopped maybe at least stopped being talked about so openly.

Just a thought.

Filed Under: Dakta Green, Daktory, Hypocrisy, Julian Crawford, Marijuana, Norml Tagged With: ,

Is this finally the ‘One World Government’ that so many conspiracy theorists have banged on about?

March 22, 2012 By

Well, probably not…but it does add some nice flammable fuel to the theory.

Gary Stix has come out stating that articles that were written on climate change 6 years ago on how to reduce carbon emissions were a mistake, what they should have been writing about was how to control us

If I had it to do over, I’d approach the issue planning differently, my fellow editors permitting. I would scale back on the nuclear fusion and clean coal, instead devoting at least half of the available space for feature articles on psychology, sociology, economics and political science. Since doing that issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer. Moon shots and Manhattan Projects are child’s play compared to needed changes in the way we behave.

Riiiight, trying to set in place ways to modify our behaviour…rather than giving is the facts to disseminate for ourselves.

An article came out last week stating

“Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change. This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.”

This article was “authored by several dozen scientists”

To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers. There would have to be consideration of some way of embracing head-in-the-cloud answers to social problems that are usually dismissed by policymakers as academic naivete.

Heavy handed, transnational power! Did you see that part? What it’s saying is that this new ‘institution’ needs absolute power to bully policy makers into doing what they are told.

I have always thought that there has never been a good solid argument put before me, to convince me of a OWG…but this scientific opinion piece demonstrates how some can think it’s an inevitability.

Filed Under: Climate Change, Gary Stix, Ideology, One World Government, Scientific American, UN Tagged With: , , , ,

Urewera 4 win, the Crown and Police look foolish

March 22, 2012 By

I said in a post on my old blog that the Urewera 18 deserved an apology. My main point is that 13 if then were put through 4 years of being accused of being terrorists and criminals and then all charges were dropped. Some of these people lost work, had to move, we separated from family all around these charges and then the charges were just dropped.

From the post

If the police put you or I through 4 years of being accused terrorists, to the detriment of our families, relationships and finances then just threw it all in saying “not enough evidence” we’d demand an apology.

And more

I have no idea what happened in Te Urewera’s for these arrests to have taken place, I don’t neither support, nor do I condemn, the so called Urewera 18. All I know is that if you or I were put through what they were put through we’d expect, and deserve, an apology.
Why should it be any different for them?

I know what your thinking…”just because the ’4′ were not convicted of the more serious crime of being a part of a criminal organisation…that doesn’t mean they aren’t”…well actually you’re wrong, that’s exactly what it means. In the eyes of the law these ’4′ are not a part of the criminal organisation that they were accused of. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, we are innocent until proven guilty, which means if you can’t prove it…in the eyes of the justice system…I didn’t do it.

I think John Minto makes a fair point

In the Auckland High Court yesterday afternoon it all boiled down to a handful of convictions of four people for technical breaches of the Arms Act. That was it. So after many millions spent during 18 months of surveillance, more millions spent on the prosecution and following 30,000 pages of evidence the police bagged a small number of minor convictions on what one of the defence lawyers described as “holding changes”.

Just think about the progressions of these charges.

Five years ago we had ‘terrorists’ being charged, that got downgraded to ‘criminal organisation’, which upon the end of the court case was downgraded to some minor firearms charges. That’s a pretty big fall!

“We thought we had Osama bin Laden…but we ended up with a pig hunter with an unlicensed firearm!”

No I am not naive to think that nothing ‘dodgy’ was happening in the Urewera’s, but as of today we cannot place guilt on these people.

If these are dangerous criminals, then the Police have let the whole country down, if they are not then the Police owe them an apology.

It would appear that the judge did not think these ’4′ were a danger to society as he grated them bail and they are today at home with their families. The Crown opposed bail, but the judge granted it anyway

There is one other part of this story that I have major concerns about.

If any institution in this fine country should be above reproach, then it needs to be our justice system. The justice system needs to dot its ‘i’s’ and cross its ‘t’s’. The idea that the court room will accept information that has been gathered illegally makes me, at best, uncomfortable.

I understand that is an accusation is so serious it may be acceptable in those instances, but in this case the prosecution have not been able to get a conviction on the more serious charges, so does that mean it wasn’t the kind of case where this should have been allowed…obviously I cannot say for sure any which way…but to have a government change the legislation of this country, to introspectively make illegal evidence legal…then not get the conviction sends warning signs to me.

If nothing else, I think the police owe the people of Ruatoki an apology for the so called raids…I don’t have a problem with them investigating what was going on, but how they did it requires an acknowledgement that they were wrong.

 

Filed Under: Apology, Bail, Emily Bailey, Firearms, John Minto, Police, Tame Iti, Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara, Terrorism, Urewera, Urs Signer Tagged With: , ,

A tough one when apparently two crimes have been committed.

January 26, 2012 By

 

Mellissa May

Mellissa May, the woman who pleaded guilty to assault on a minor, is seeking diversion.

Typical talk back call over the past few days saying, “She should go before a jury, they’d never convict her” or “the police should never have charged her”, well ‘they would’ and ‘they should have.’

Just because a jury sees something as ‘unfair’ doesn’t mean a guilty verdict would come out and this assault happened in front of the police, they were there, they saw it. Imagine the precedent that it would set if police did nothing about a woman, for whatever justifiable reason you think, hit a minor in front of them. Do we think that May would have admitted guilt if she thought she could have ‘gotten away with it?’ She pleaded guilty so she could apply for diversion; if there were any plausible scenario where she may have been found ‘not guilty’ in a court of law logic tells us she would have taken that path.

Here is the one indisputable fact in this case. This woman committed an assault on a 14 year old. That is no question about that. She hit a 14 year old…in front of the police…and now has admitted her guilt.

Now, as an experienced talk back host I must humbly advise ‘Owen’ from ‘Nelson’ of the point he should be making. What you are actually saying ‘Owen’ is that you think this assault is justifiable. There was definitely an assault, but you think that this mother assaulting the 14 year old girl was acceptable because she allegedly beat up her child. Well let’s investigate that.

The indisputable fact is that the assault took place, the disputable fact is that the girl who was assaulted, and her ‘friend’ assaulted the child of Mellissa May. Now let me be clear here, I am not saying that didn’t happen, but currently that is alleged as it hasn’t been proven in a court of law and we take those accused in NZ as innocent until proven guilty…another minor part of out society that I’d advise ‘Owen’ about before he convicts every person in NZ on a news item.

So now were at at the point where we can confirm that May assaulted a 14 year old, and that she has admitted her guilt. Those are facts. The remaining question is what happens now?

If the justice system allows her diversion, then we are setting another precedent here that if your kid gets beaten up, you can go an take revenge physically on the ‘alleged’ perpetrator…if she receives a sentence from the judge then people will be asking about ‘the right to defend ones child’…albeit a weak argument in this story.

To each of those questions I have no answer, if it was me who had the child who allegedly assaulted May’s child I’d be thinking one thing, if I was May I’d be thinking the opposite.

Tough one.

Filed Under: Talkback, Violence Tagged With:

Drop in Legal Aid lawyers a concern for the most vulnerable

January 24, 2012 By

Since the ‘crackdown’ on the legal aid system last year lawyers have been fleeing from being available to clients who have no other way of paying for their services.

In 2006 the government were told that if they increased the number of people eligible for legal aid, there would be cost increases, the government of the day did allow more people on legal aid, then when the bills came in they ‘freaked out’ and pulled the rug out from under the system.

Over the past year or so the number of legal aid lawyers working in the family courts has halved from over 2,000 to around 1,100. The number of cases hasn’t dropped, the demand hasn’t halved, but the number of lawyers has. This means the family courts will now start to run even slower, with the most vulnerable in society finding it even harder to find a lawyer.

It’s the beginning of having the wealthy be able to ‘buy’ justice, when the poor have no chance. I say that as if it isn’t currently like that…I guess I say that with a little optimism.

Lawyers who currently receive legal aid are subsidizing the tax payer by accepting a lower fee than required. The current legal aid rates are set at 1997 levels, which means the rate paid hasn’t gone up in 15 years and with the new ‘fixed fee rates’ and ‘onerous paperwork’ many lawyers are running for the hills.

Where is the line between the ‘waste’ they we were told about, and ensuring that those that need the help can get it?

If the lawyers are running from the new system doesn’t that mean that those we should be thinking about, the ones who need assistance, will start to fall through the cracks? I agree that there is not a simple ‘one size fits all’ solution, but initial reports would seem to confirm that this National Government has come at this issue with too heavy a hand.

Filed Under: John Key, legislation, politics Tagged With:

America still using Atom bombs all these years later…except this time it’s in the form of SOPA

January 21, 2012 By

Kanye West 'Loves MegaUpload'

The latest news in this whole Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid delayed the debate until Tuesday (Wednesday NZ time).

Firstly so we have an understanding, these bills work together, they are ‘sister bills’, SOPA in Congress and PIPA in the Senate.

The purpose of these acts is to “tackle the problem of foreign-based websites that sell pirated movies, music and other products.” For me, that in itself is not a bad idea, there is a problem with illegally downloaded copyrighted product, and I do think that taking a song, album, piece of software or movie is theft, however we get into problems when we try to figure out who is to be held responsible for these downloads and how we hold them accountable.

Yesterday, on behalf of the FBI, NZ Police raided the old ‘Chrisco Mansion’ in Coatsville and arrested several NZ Residents for their involvement sharing copyright property via their website MegaUpload.com which is said to be the worlds largest file sharing site. Not that we have the full story yet but I think this case will go far beyond the SOPA and PIPA issues as in news reports of the last 24 hours numerous more serious charges have been laid against these gentlemen like ‘racketeering’ and ‘money laundering’, that just says to me there’s more to this particular case than sharing the latest Rhianna album. It also needs to be noted that SOPA and PIPA haven’t even gotten close to being passed yet so whilst this has become the poster child for the potential power of those acts, it really doesn’t relate to them.

That all being said I am a little uncomfortable with three elements of this case.

  1. NZ Police doing the dirty work for the FBI
  2. The site http://www.MegaUpload.com being taken down by American officials, doesn’t American law, like ours, tell us we are innocent until proven guilty…how can that decision be made already without these accused men having their day in court
  3. Many celebrities, the kinds of people who should want their ‘intellectual property’ protected support, use and voice their ‘love’ for MegaUpload

Something doesn’t seem quite right when all these artists are singing…literally…the praises of this ‘evil site’.

This conversation then splits into several ‘strands’. The first is internet piracy.

I am completely against the idea that someone, somewhere can get for free, a piece of art (be that music, movie, software…whatever) when they should be paying for it. If you or I had intellectual property to a physical item, we wouldn’t be happy about someone taking for themselves, then copying that item and passing it around for free. This would effect our sales. To me internet piracy is theft, there is no other explanation…taking something for free, when the owners of that item want to you pay for it…is theft.

The second is, “who are the pirates?” Which becomes cloudier. Example, I watched an episode of South Park the other day on line because I missed it on the TV. Now it was free to air on FOUR, but technically what I did may have been illegal…have I committed a crime under current law, or under newly proposed copyright law? I am not sure. If it was ‘free’ on FOUR then is getting it for free on the ‘net seems ok. But technically maybe not. And then there’s also the issue of copyright holders ‘losing revenue’. I wouldn’t ever use this as an excuse for ‘stealing’ but there is truth in the idea that some people who download copyrighted product from the internet will never purchase that item, so there is no money lost. This is a weak argument for ‘stealing’ but there is some truth for ‘a few’ internet users.

The third is who should be responsible for that theft and how should they be held accountable. Well again that becomes cloudy. If it was a physical item being stolen, then it’s the person who takes the item from the shop that you would charge…but these are not physical items and there needs to be many complicit people involved to make this file sharing work. Therefore it would seem that the logical conclusion to to make the site accountable…easier said than done.

If the site is active in the distribution of the copyrighted material, then fair enough, hold them accountable. But what is someone uses the site for reasons it wasn’t intended. MegaUpload.com seems on one level to be a valid way of people sending their files around the world, just like DropSend or Box.net and many others. So what if the people running that site are just being used as ‘pawns’ for illegal activity to happen around them? It could be the difference between lending someone your car to rob a bank, and having your car stolen and it then being used in a bank robbery. In one case their is active accountable…in the other there isn’t. That’s what sites like Wikipedia are worried about, someone puts a link on one of their articles, then technically they will be in breach of these new laws.

Jon Stewart had an interesting take on it, click here to see as WordPress doesn’t allow flash to be embedded.

To me it seems like this is an issue of Corporations wanting their pound of flesh, and they are entitled to it. The Corporation pays for the album, movie, television show…whatever…and they don’t want it stolen. It’s a little different in places like NZ because our artists, especially music, really do struggle. In larger societies I don’t think downloading the latest Coldplay album would effect Chris Martin’s net worth…but done enough times it would affect Capitol Records profits, dones over 100 artists at Capitol Records…well you can see how it works. But what always seems difficult to understand is how Corporations get the support of, and action taken by, federal agencies like the FBI so quickly.

In 2010 the Supreme Court of the USA decreed that Corporations have the same first amendment rights as people when it comes to Freedom of Speech, it’s called Corporate Personhood.

Corporate personhood is the status conferred upon corporations under the law, which allows corporations to have rights and responsibilities similar to those of a natural person. There is a question about which subset of rights afforded to natural persons should also be afforded to corporations as legal persons.

This gave Corporations the right to spend as much money as they want on political campaigns but I think it has gone so much further.

I think today, in America, Corporations have far more rights than people. And one of the scarier parts of this is that Corporations, in America, have more rights than people who may, or may not be doing some illegal, in a mansion in Coatesville.

Revisiting the idea that these guys who run MegaUpload may, or may not, have committed crime(s), yet their site has been taken down. The power that these Corporations wield to get a sentence carried out, before a court case even happens is frankly scary. Imagine if this was a ‘person to person’ theft or crime. Would the accused be subject to action that you would expect with a conviction…the answer is ‘No!’

It seems that the legislation is far too heavy for the issue at hand and will catch out many whom the acts are not aimed at. I wouldn’t say it was using a sledgehammer on a fly, as the issue of copyright infringement is much larger than a ‘fly’ but maybe it’s something like demolishing a building with an atomic bomb.

Filed Under: Internet, Media, Money, Technology Tagged With: , , , , ,
« Older Posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 79 other followers

%d bloggers like this: