To Hell With All Of Them

I’ve been watching Chris Snowdon talking about pubs and restaurants being closed down by the latest lockdown.

I found myself thinking that there’s nothing really new about this. The same thing happened on 1 July 2007, except that back then it was just smokers who were permanently expelled from society, Now it’s everybody else, but only for a month or two (we are told). In both cases draconian measures were taken to combat a small or non-existent health threat. Covid-19 is a small health threat, and tobacco smoke is a non-existent health threat.

Nobody spoke up for smokers back in 2007. Why should any smoker speak up now that everybody else is now being subjected to the same medical tyranny?

We’re in the grip of phantom menaces: tobacco smoke, global warming, Covid-19, etc. We’re under the spell of nightmares and dreams. And they’re being used to scare us into locking down society, and crashing the economy.

I suppose that in the end we’ll wake up. It doesn’t look like that will happen any time soon. But when it does, what might we expect, what might we hope for?

One desirable result would be the demise of all the experts, particularly health experts. It’s manifestly obvious that most of them know nothing about anything. They’ve made lucrative careers out of scare-mongering, peddling illusions in which everyone will have ceased to believe.

Another desirable result would be the demise of the mainstream media that helps peddle the fictions of the scare-mongering experts..

A good economic crash should wipe them all out, as we find ourselves no longer able to afford luxuries. For the nightmares and dreams the fear-mongers peddle are luxuries we’ll no longer be able to afford.

So I look forward to hearing that the BBC is being closed down. It will be no loss to me. I never listen to them anyway: I’m not allowed to, because I don’t pay a TV licence fee. Once they’re gone (and all the other TV stations as well), the scare-mongers will no longer have a platform from which to broadcast their scare stories. The current panic will subside. Nobody will talk about tobacco smoke or global warming or Covid any more. It will be a blessed peace.

I also look forward to seeing the UN and the WHO and BMA and Royal Society of Physicians closed down, They’re luxuries we won’t be able to afford either. Won’t it be bliss when we no longer have a Chief Medical Officer or a Surgeon General or whatever they’re called.

A self-induced economic crash is coming. And it’s going to sweep them all away.

To hell with all of them. The sooner it happens, the better.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to To Hell With All Of Them

  1. It would be nice to Be able to compare The rate of covid in smoked banned pubs Compared 2The little informal Smokey drinky pubs that must exist all over the place.

    – MJM

  2. Mark Jarratt says:

    Regret there are indications the latest hysteria will be used, or abused, to further entrench top down elitist control and reduce freedom. This must be strongly resisted.

  3. Rose says:

    To Hell With All of Them?

    Long ago all these things were started by the little people anyway, they can rebuild.
    The thing in the meanwhile is not to become too dependent and find out alternate ways things can be done or made, before you have to.

    I learnt how to make tiny, very sharp knives from flint in a quiet corner of my Grandfather’s garden when I was small
    I had never seen flint before and wondered what this weird looking stone did.
    I soon found out, good thing they didn’t find me, I was in my best dress.

  4. Rose says:

    Try as I might, to my great regret, I have never managed to make fire, no matter which method i tried.

    I have often wondered if this is what this global meddling is really all about, to make us so dependent on government and industry that we forget what we once knew and render us incapable of looking after ourselves easily and cheaply.

    Perhaps I should give it one more try, after all, knowledge is power even if you never use it.

  5. Александра Собина says:

    As far as I know Scottish exterminator already planed restrictions till next May. Calls “safe voting”. Well, the safest would be no voting at all.

  6. Mark Jarratt says:

    And off topic, but why should a licence be required to watch the BBC when taxpayers have already funded it… if they need revenue, get the woke climate change and other fellow travellers to pay, through advertising (oh, that’s right, like ASH, they only exist due to public funds too!).

  7. RdM says:

    Anti-TV Licence Campaign Crusaders Celebrate
    Friday, 10 November 2000, 1:38 pm

    The tax was abolished not because the group won in court, but because a frail 78 year old pensioner managed to convince a hundred thousand fellow New Zealanders that they shouldn’t pay the tax.

    Speaking at today’s celebration of his victory, that pensioner, Ned Haliburton said “we were a small band of dedicated idealists with a three year campaign of civil resistance, that peacefully brought about the scrapping of what we considered to be an immoral and unfair tax.

    “This was a significant victory for a group of people who didn’t say what can one person do?”

    ‘Public service’ or ‘commercial’?

    New Zealand began by adopting the BBC’s ‘public service’ approach – non-commercial broadcasting which offered a diversity of programmes to “inform , educate and entertain”. This was funded by an annual licence fee (initially six pounds and 10 shillings per home).

    Within a year, New Zealand television began screening commercials to provide additional funding. At first advertising took up seven minutes per hour, but half the week remained ad-free. Advertising has gradually increased, so that commercials now occupy about 12 to 14 minutes per hour on the main free-to-air channels. The only ad-free time is Sunday morning, plus a few public holidays. The licence fee was abolished in 1999. The main funding for New Zealand’s free-to-air channels (ie its non-subscription, non-pay channels) comes from advertising.

    So … perhaps civil resistance … can work?

    • Mark Jarratt says:

      Well done RdM, and congratulations to Ned! Resist the kleptocracy, they just waste it to appease shrill activists.

      • RdM says:

        Well thanks Mark, but it’s just reportage;- of an example.
        That was 20+ years ago. It’d be great if the UK could catch up, for sure, say.
        But actually the almost purely commercial model has led to dross programming.

        We (used to at least, not sure how it is now) look across the ditch to Australia SBS as having more independent programming and art films, say, but glancing at it now I’m not sure that that’s true any longer!

        Meanwhile, pretty well absolute rubbish from TVNZ, the few films per week old re-runs and or poorly reviewed cheaply bought, lots of ‘reality TV’ shows, however a few gems per week which is worth having a TV (and Freeview box if not a smart TV) for – but I wouldn’t want to be paying a license fee just for access to see 95% dross! ;=})

        (I pitied European tourists tuning in, but they’re not here now anyway.)

        Or to buy a TV! Mine was free, a cast-off.
        Can be used as a PC monitor or DVD replay device too.

        Weirdly, a few days a week Maori TV has some art house cinema.
        Just for cultural comparison, this is what you can expect here, any or each particular night of the week, on Freeview free to air (since we’ve gone digital).

        Of course, more well off folks subscribe to Netflix, Neon, Sky, whatever.
        Bread and circuses. Mostly just rubbish on Freeview.
        I watch very little, looking at the guide ahead of time.

        • Mark Jarratt says:

          Yes RdM Australian free to air is now mostly rubbish, and many watch YouTube, Netflix etc. instead. What really ticks me off is the endless repetitive bombardment of government funded anti smoking advertising, including one by some Aboriginal “health” group – Winnayunga or whoever…they never ever stop. I tried contacting them to ask if they ever assess whether their endless propaganda is effective, but of course like most lifestyle control bullies they are anonymous and unaccountable.
          How odd that anti tobacco prohibitionists claim advertising is so powerful that people are brainwashed into taking up smoking, so it must be banned, but their own relentless advertising is so unpersuasive it must continue forever…pardon, that might actually be based in logic, an approach consistently conspicuous by absence from prohibitionist “arguments”. Lying bullies… 🤥

        • Mark Jarratt says:

          SBS on Demand is actually quite good, but unsure if you can get in Aotearoa… the other major streaming stations are just light entertainment, whereas the ABC, like the BBC, is now just a staff run collective pushing the woke progressive line, devoid of objectivity. They should be required to compete without public funds: see how much support their elitist we know best agenda really has…about 8% is my guess, but I was wrong about Trump being re elected! I admit it, will prohibitionists ever admit error? I won’t hold my breath…gag, hack, cough.

        • RdM says:

          “How odd that anti tobacco prohibitionists claim advertising is so powerful that people are brainwashed into taking up smoking, so it must be banned, but their own relentless advertising is so unpersuasive it must continue forever… “

          Yes, as Chris Snowdon pointed out some time ago –

          and in a later post

  8. Dmitry says:

    Frank, you are wishing for the demise of all the experts (and the media) – but then why should the people listen to anyone at all, us included? And how will they know we are saying something clever?

  9. jaxthefirst says:

    What I don’t quite understand is why all those “elites” at the top of the tree would want a Great Re-set. I thought that things were going pretty swimmingly for most of them. They seem to have created unlimited numbers of ways in which to make themselves richer whilst impoverishing the rest of us, they’ve managed to beat the majority of us into a situation in which anyone in the private (i.e. money-making) sector pretty much never stops working because much of their work these days involves doing public servants’ jobs as well as doing their own, so as well as taking all our money from us, they also, it seems, now own our time, too. Covid-19 has been an excellent example of how even people’s opinions, minds and actions are now completely programmed to be switched on and off at will, with anyone daring to voice any opposition to the Accepted Orthodoxy roundly castigated by members of their own society, who seem to find the existence of someone who dares to doubt the Great Leaders to be a personal threat to themselves. So that’s Job Done, then. – the “elites” (whoever they may be) seem to have the majority of the public right where they want them whilst they themselves can behave as disgracefully and dishonourably as they want with impunity. So … why the need for a Re-set?

    But, whatever the reason, from a smokers’ perspective it starts to look more and more like the Smoking Ban was exactly what many have already called it – the Smoking Ban Experiment. A testing-ground, if you like, for those in charge to see how they could best force people into making changes to their mindset, their opinions and their actions whilst at the same time allowing them to believe that that mindset, those opinions and those actions had in fact been voluntarily changed. In many ways, when you look at short history of the Covid-19 hysteria from the start of the year to now, it’s been a bit like a speeded-up version of the anti-smoking movement from its own beginnings up to the present day. All the ingredients are there – the “hidden menace,” the ramped-up scary-sounding statistics, the daily-dosage fear-factor, the worship of the “saintly” NHS, the guilt-inducing adverts, the cashing-in of businesses trying to make a fast buck selling useless products, the deliberate encouragement of over-reaction from easily-frightened members of the public, the outlawing or ridicule directed towards opposing voices, the avoidance of uncomfortable truths that don’t fit the story they want everyone to believe, blame being apportioned roundly to disobedient “naughty” people who didn’t “obey the rules” whenever the chosen “preventative measures” are shown not to work, the suble encouragement of “self-policing” by those in society who have always harboured a secret desire to tell other people what they can and cannot do, absence of reasoned or sensible debate and the excessive, knee-jerk reactions to every passing rumour. Christ, there’s even the same slight sense of “competition” with other countries as there was with the anti-smoking movement – which country is “doing best” and who is “doing better” than us and who is “doing worse.” The one thing they haven’t used, which surprises me, is the “think of the cheeeldren” line, because that was such a successful one for anti-smoking. Maybe it’s because it’s now been used so often (and by so many of the new “movements” which have sprung up since the smoking ban) that it’s no longer effective. After all, even the most effective “persuader” loses its force when it becomes the “trump card” for every new campaign on the planet!

    And after all that it now turns out that the movement on which the control-seekers cut their teeth and learned the best tactics for social manipulation and psychological control should turn out to be in respect of the one thing that offers daily protection against this new, even more terrifying “menace.” Now, that’s irony at its finest! All things come full circle in the end, as they say.

    • waltc says:

      Another brilliant exposition. The one thing missing from it that started with anti-tobacco was the intrusion into the home. Once it was accepted that govt could tell people they couldn’t smoke in their own homes, apartments, balconies, terraces, gardens, cars, it was a green light to tell them they couldn’t do whateverthehell there–like have more than two dinner guests, or none at all or tell them they had to wear masks in the shower. And was it in the UK where someone suggested that improper in-home dinner conversation should be made into a crime?

      And here’s another that started with anti-smoking: the encouragement of the snitch. Here, they’re now encouraging people to rat on their neighbors if they see too many guests arriving next door. And NYC, going farther afield from virus-tattling, is offering $50 bounty from the $175 ticket price to those who report their neighbor’s improperly parked cars. And I fear it’s downhill from here, with the incoming reign of the controlling “progressives.”

  10. Mark Jarratt says:

    Hello fellow anti lifestyle control prohibitionists. Please favour me with any comments and suggestions on my draft reply to the local Member of Parliament for the Australian Labor [sic] Party.
    I do not know why the claimed party of the workers insists on waging war on our recreational pastimes…apologies in advance for any duplication!

    I did not observe, although it is true, that if the aim is to reduce the burden on the public health system, and if the claim that smokers die earlier is true, smoking should be encouraged not penalised, although placing institutions above the citizens they are created to serve is the essence of totalitarianism…

    Dear Mr McDonell,

    Thank you for taking the time to respond on behalf of Member for Bean Mr D Smith to my representations of 26 October 2020.

    My initial correspondence did not seek details of ALP tobacco control policies, of which I and millions of other adult Australian smoking voters are well aware.

    However, since you quoted those policies in your response, I offer the following brief comments.

    The claim that tobacco [consumption] annually kills more than 15,000 Australians annually, incurring over $31.5 billion in health and economic costs, has been repeatedly and comprehensively discredited.

    That figure is derived from the Collins and Lapsley study “The Costs of Tobacco, Alcohol and Illicit Drug Abuse to Australian Society in 2004/05” (ISBN: 1-74186-436-4 Online ISBN: 1-74186-437-2), comprised of:

    1. $5.75 billion attributed to absenteeism and workforce reduction.
    2. $8 billion attributed to reduction of unpaid household labour.
    3. $3.6 billion as the cost of resources for the manufacture and distribution of tobacco products.
    4. $19 billion “intangible costs”, the major element of the $31.5 billion figure, the claimed hypothetical cost of pain and suffering and the “valuation of life” – an estimate of the loss of productive capacity from premature death.

    The net cost of smoking “related” disease, itself an untenable claim as non-smokers suffer from every disease of smokers, meaning it is impossible to attribute the causes solely to smoking, is therefore $318.4 million.

    That figure is dwarfed by the $8.85 billion the government collected in annual revenue at the time of the Collins and Lapsley study, now around $18 billion with the repeated excessive and punitive tax increases inflicted on smokers, a revenue figure conspicuously absent from your response, and from the guesstimates in the study.

    Former Treasury Secretary Dr Ken Henry, AO, dismissed the costs of smoking as “…impossible to calculate” in his 2010 tax review.

    You state 2.5 million Australians smoke every day and claim this is “…too much”. How many smokers would be acceptable to the ALP, and how was that figure determined?

    You also state the ALP supports more increases in tobacco excise (GST is added), when taxes are already 86% of the retail price, or over 925% ad valorem.

    Given that tobacco excise is already $1576.57 per kilogram ex GST, more valuable than pure silver bullion, making Australian tobacco the most expensive on Earth, what rate of taxation would be acceptable to the ALP, and how is this calculated?

    As for the World Health Organization (WHO) reference, their smugly paternalistic advocacy for control of “non communicable diseases” by taxing tobacco, “junk” food, and sugary drinks is demonstrably regressive, with the burden falling primarily on those of limited means.

    WHO compromised their objectivity by accepting millions in lifestyle control bribes from billionaire Michael Bloomberg, rewarded by appointment as Ambassador for Non-Communicable Diseases, a title he briefly shared with Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe.

    Such hard coercive paternalism, applying sin taxes on price inelastic products, is ineffective at changing consumer behaviour, although proven to be effective at lining the coffers of government treasuries.

    Prohibitionist tobacco controls adversely affect millions of Australian adults daily, as do related nanny state social engineering policies.

    The basis for ever increasing illiberal authoritarian tobacco control policies should be readily publicly available, yet my attempts over many years have, as also stated in my initial correspondence, failed to produce reasoned justification.

    Tobacco prohibitionist policies disregard equity, are openly hostile to personal choice, and principles of personal freedom, the foundations of liberal democracy.

    I again respectfully request that Mr Smith act on my behalf as a constituent and seek justification and detailed comment from the respective Ministers and agencies, assumed to be the Treasurer and Minister for Health, upon the nine (9) points raised in my initial correspondence (copied below for your ready reference).

    Thank you in advance for addressing these issues.

    Yours sincerely,

    Mark Jarratt

    Annex 1: M. Jarratt representations via D. Smith MHR on tobacco controls

    1. In every area of “public health” other than tobacco lifestyle controls, the “my body my choice” principle of bioethics is respected as inviolate. Please state the bioethical reasoning supporting overturning that established principle of personal autonomy and consent.

    2. What consultation was undertaken with citizens directly affected by prohibitionist tobacco control imposts, when, and how? Please provide evidence of such consultation, and the government mandate for adopting hard coercive paternalism and prohibition as national policy. [Comment: On available information, unaccountable prohibitionists have lobbied for policies based in hard coercive paternalism with wilful disregard for the rights and preferences of those directly affected. Evidence is absent that vitally relevant issues were objectively assessed, including infringing consumer free choice, trampling civil liberties, interference in the legitimate market, and deadweight regulatory and enforcement costs].

    3. Where is evidence of the government mandate to prohibit personal cigarette imports by post? As per point 1. above, where is evidence of consent by those affected by such public health “treatments”? Please provide evidence that removing the option for individuals to import personal cigarette shipments but not cigars via the postal system has a direct and demonstrable causal link to “public health”. [Comment: In common with many adult smokers, I do not consent to such relentless petty official intrusion into my individual lifestyle preferences. Government tobacco tax, ban and censor prohibitions clearly violate the “harm principle” articulated by political philosopher John Stuart Mill, and no defensible basis for these officious discriminatory policies has been stated].

    4. A key claim of tobacco controllers is that high taxes reduce smoking rates. If that prohibitionist claim was true, nations with the highest tobacco taxes would have the lowest smoking rates. They do not. Has this fact been given sufficient weight, and the related Laffer Curve effect of revenue loss through excessive taxation, as both evasion and civil enforcement/punishment costs escalate? [Comment: Leaving aside the threshold issue whether government has standing and moral authority to interfere in individual lifestyle choices, the revenue evasion and social consequences of punitive taxation are ignored by tobacco prohibitionist zealots, who do not bear the costs of their failed policies and are never held accountable].

    5. Please provide proof that prohibiting the import of cigarettes, but not cigars, by post is necessary, proportionate, and effective, including supporting empirical evidence such as independent peer reviewed studies and copies of relevant submissions to legislators. Also, as for points 2. and 3. above, how were citizens including smokers consulted? [Comment: The burden of proof to justify treating cigarette imports by post as prohibited imports, but not cigars, rests solely with the proponents of such additional regulatory intervention. In the absence of such proof, this draconian impost has no legitimate foundation. How can individual personal cigarette imports by post, but not cigars, possibly affect “public health”?].

    6. As a matter of law and jurisprudence, how can tobacco cigarettes, but not cigars, be treated as prohibited imports like narcotics when the product is legal to purchase and consume? Tobacco cigarettes are either legal or they are not. [Comment: Prohibiting one type of tobacco product (cigarettes) and one method of import (international parcels post) is discriminatory, and exempting cigars indicates this regulatory intervention is based in snobbish elitism and social control, not “improving public health”].

    7. How does denying legitimate personal importers of tobacco cigarettes by post the opportunity to pay the excessive and punitive duties and taxes “protect” government revenue, as claimed in Home Affairs Notice 2019-013? If there is no option to pay the import duties and taxes, no revenue is collected. How can it be logical to claim that federal tobacco import revenue will be protected by declining to collect it?

    8. How will the effectiveness of the prohibition on importing cigarettes by post be assessed (e.g. the cost of border staff enforcement activity plus the cost of foregone revenue by withdrawing the option to pay) relative to the public health objectives claimed to be its foundation? Do these and other tobacco control provisions include a requirement for unbiased post-implementation or program evaluation review by the Australian National Audit Office or other relevant independent bodies? If so, where is evidence of such program audit and evaluation?

    9. Why are personal tobacco imports seized and destroyed without notice to the importer, as if they are prohibited narcotics, when tobacco products are widely available consumer goods? Why are importers denied the opportunity to challenge the seizure or pay the import duties and taxes? [Comment: Inspection by Border Force officers is required to assess and seize tobacco imports. Producing a debit note for payment of import duties and taxes involves a similar level of officer intervention, yet under the seizure regime, no debit note for payment of import duties and taxes is produced. This is a deadweight loss to the Commonwealth, evidence of the moral crusade behind tobacco prohibitionist policies, and unconscionable abuse of federal powers over imports].
    From: McDonell, Tony (D. Smith, MP)
    Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2020 11:50
    To: Mark Jarratt
    Subject: FW: Bean Community Update | Federal Budget Edition | 13 October 2020

    Dear Mr Jarratt,

    Thank you for your response to the Bean Community Update, concerning the tobacco excise. Mr Smith has asked me to respond to you on his behalf.

    Whilst Labor appreciates smoking may well be a lifestyle choice it is, nevertheless, committed to reducing the consumption of tobacco in Australia. Each year in this country, tobacco kills more than 15,000 people and has more than $31.5 billion in health and economic costs.

    There are 2.5 million Australians who smoke every day – this is too much.

    A Labor Government will build on Labor’s strong record of policy actions to reduce the consumption of tobacco in Australia, by continuing to increase the tobacco excise. Labor’s approach to tackling tobacco consumption is both evidence-based and in line with international best practice.

    The World Health Organisation (WHO) considers that raising tobacco taxes is amongst the most effective and cost-effective tobacco control interventions. The WHO considers this also represents best practice health policy.

    I do hope I have been able to clarify Labor’s position for you.

    Thank you for writing to Mr Smith and for making your concerns known.

    Yours sincerely,

    Tony McDonell
    Electorate Officer

    • waltc says:

      Mark, I’m commenting mostly and only as an editor but in terms of content, where you talk about nons getting the same illnesses attributed to smoking you might also mention tne cite-able stat that 90-92% of lifelong smokers never get lung cancer and their lungs are safe for, and routinely used in, transplants. Also that lung cancer is rising exponentially in nonsmokers.

      Editor hat: your opening uses the word “annually” twice, basically a typo…. You might paren the intervening phrase in the paragraph about the net cost or rewrite the sentence so it doesn’t run on in the middle before it gets to the money conclusion.

      In your question section, either do without the bracketed comments entirely (your position is quite clear w/o them) or at least separate them into a new paragraph. As it is, it distracts from your astute questions and nearly buries them in a long block of prose.

      . In general, see if you can pare the whole thing to its nub because the longer something is, the less likely to be read. It looks like work and they don’t want to work. They didn’t ask for this letter; in their minds, you’re inflicting it on them, and all they really want from constituents is something some office under-aide can skim quickly for the gist and respond to with Form Letter #3. So if you want it to be passed on to The Man, make it as short, unredundant, and easy to read as you can w/o losing its punch (and even then, there’s no guarantee). . I appreciate both your expressed sentiments and your good writing here, but your targets, unfortunately, won’t

      • RdM says:

        You’re perhaps too smart for them, Mark, too erudite for them (have they even heard of John Stuart Mill or the Laffer Curve?) and maybe too succinct for them.
        (perhaps provide footnotes or better links for the above references?)

        At the very least, I suggest a new line and white space before each “[Comment: section].

        It’ll look too dense for them, he she it (committee etc.) otherwise.
        Their eyes will glaze over. It’ll go in to the too hard basket.


        I admire your persistence nevertheless.
        However looking at the original reply at the end, one thinks head bang wall.

        I’d started to write more, but got bogged down looking up references & etc.

        One needs to be able to draw in unarguable counter facts to each of their rote arguments.

        Quite a lot of work and time to do that!

        Best regards, sorry such a brief note.
        It’s hard to be persuasive but somehow it must be done.

        More work! ;=})

      • Mark Jarratt says:

        Thanks very much indeed for your very helpful comments and suggestions WaltC and RdM! I edited to include, and also cut back the lengthy prose (I noticed the repetition of “annually” before sending, well spotted, as it is easy to overlook errors when reviewing one’s own efforts). I too doubt these latest representations will get much traction…but someone has to do it! Top down elitist social control is the meme of the day though…as noted by other astute readers, tobacco prohibitions and related relentless officious intrusion may well be or have been the Trojan Horse for more diktats over we unwashed polluting peasants…

        • RdM says:

          Thanks Mark, a couple of hours apart in global time.
          Hopefully we can catch up in real time or at least virtually some time.
          Until then,
          Best regards! ;=})
          ~ Ross M

  11. Joe L. says:

    OT: This hero belongs in the Smokers’ Hall of Fame:

  12. Clicky says:

  13. RdM says:

    $300,000 Marsden grant to academic accused of lying

    (not sure if the teaser pic will work)

    But worth reading the post and comments.
    Some push-back against public health academics even from non-smokers.

No need to log in

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

You are commenting using your 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.