Friday, January 29, 2010
New Labour’s 4,289 New Laws – Yet Blair Walks Free
You couldn’t get a more stark summing-up of Labour’s moral bankruptcy. For war criminal Tony Blair, the Prime Minister whose illegal invasion was led by George Bush and cheerled by the baying enthusiasm of the Labour and Conservative parties while only the Liberal Democrats stood against it, life after office means pocketing millions of pounds and sparing just one day to help Lord Chilcot with his Inquiry. By contrast, for the rest of us ordinary people, in thirteen years Labour has fabricated over 4,289 new laws so far (nearly one a day) to waste police time and micro-manage our lives.
This is not the trial of Tony Blair, sadly. The Inquiry has no power to lock the bastard up. They don’t even have the power to summon up all the evidence – lots of Mr Blair’s dodgy correspondence promising war in advance has been blocked from view, despite Nick Clegg demanding that the Inquiry must be given all the facts. Still, from the Labour Government that abolished the right to silence, we all know what to infer from that. But I suspect that even Mr Blair’s extraordinary gifts with language will not entirely spare him from wriggling in discomfort under some harder questions than his native chat show sofa puts to him. However deflective or punctured his composure in today’s hearing goes, though, I won’t be the only one to feel a sense of betrayal that, at the end of his testimony, he’ll stroll back to making more extreme wealth from his Premiership rather than be escorted back to the cell he deserves.
Disgraced former Labour hatchet man, failed Home Secretary, serial waster of police time through making up hundreds of daft new laws and unbelievable media favourite David Blunkett complained on the Today Programme this morning that some newspapers have “never forgiven” Mr Blair for the Iraq War, which is so terribly unfair to a “great” man. Well, fair’s fair: none of you war criminals have ever said sorry or admitted there’s anything to forgive. The flippant answer to such whining pleas usually involves asking Mrs Lincoln how, apart from that, her night at the theatre went, but I just find it difficult to sneer away hundreds of thousands of deaths on Mr Blair’s (and Mr Brown’s, and Mr Straw’s, and Mr Blunkett’s) orders. Or the lies that they used to justify them. Or ignoring all the people who marched and protested, and all the Liberal Democrats’ questions about how it could all go so horribly wrong, and evading responsibility when it all did. Or ignoring all the government lawyers who told them, as the Liberal Democrats did, that their war would be illegal and smash international law into piece – Mr Straw’s response to them, as we heard this week after his leadership-hungry posturing last week as a tortured man of principle, was in fact to boast that he was always being told what he was planning was illegal, and always went ahead and did it anyway. So much for the Rule of Law.
What else did Mr Blunkett plead pity for when he was interviewed this morning? What was his response to being pressed about the repeated outright lie about weapons of mass destruction being ready to launch at Britain within 45 minutes, a three-part claim in which all three parts were untrue and at least two were known to be untrue by the Labour government who sexed them up before misleading the House of Commons and spreading their terrifying lie through their chosen attack-dog newspapers, screaming that everyone who questioned them was a traitor? About the fact that Mr Blair and the rest of the Labour Government claimed that Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction” were “active, detailed and growing” and “beyond doubt” when the evidence before they sexed it up read instead “sporadic and patchy”?
Mr Blunkett’s response was that he wants to be loved, and it was all very hurtful, and that – you may have to stop reading, gentle viewer, lest you burst into tears – he even had to ask people to stop arguing about Iraq over the table because it was upsetting his dinner parties. Oh, the horror. So never let it be said that Labour ministers didn’t suffer just as wretchedly as the people being bombed to blazes.
Something else you may have heard on this morning’s Today Programme is the Labour Government’s latest example of legislative diarrhoea. Today’s new law – well, one of them – is to prohibit “persistent possession of alcohol in a public place” – well, they’ve not banned alliteration, at least. Richard groaned and exclaimed, “Why not just say, ‘You’re under arrest for hanging about’?” Welcome, then, to the Labour Government’s 4,290th law – or 4,291st, or 4,292nd, or have we passed 4,300 yet? And are they in a headlong rush to top 5,000 pointless prohibitions before they’re forced from office?
Just last week, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary Chris Huhne revealed that Labour’s record, while being shamefully poor at achieving anything in the real world, is a sparkling success in the Labour MPs’ imaginations that have cobbled together new legislation in ever-greater torrents. A couple of years ago, Labour had only inflicted 3,000 new laws on an unenthusiastic public; but by last week, Chris revealed, the total had rocketed to 4,289. If only manufacturing industry had grown like the manufacturing of legislation, Britain would be a world leader. If only saying the magic words really made it so, Britain would be a shining fairyland. But, instead, Chris pleaded that, if only Labour would stop, think and start repealing some of their ridiculous 4,289 new laws, the rest of us might find it easier to get on with our lives.
Yes, with 4,289 new laws under New Labour as of last week, and still growing rapidly as we heard this morning, Britain may be an international disgrace for joining George Bush’s illegal war, and Britain may be the last major economy to emerge from recession – and even that by the most Brown-trouseredly microscopic measurement – but Britain is, proudly, a world leader in law-making.
But what’s it for?
Though the Labour Government has produced more new laws than any other government in British history, are we in some way more riotous than ever before? Hardly. Are the police short of powers? Not a bit of it. Can any of us even keep up with this mountain of legislation, and find out exactly what we’re newly outlawed from doing day by day? Not even if it’s our full-time job, I imagine, though if there’s one sort of job that’s been growing as unemployment spirals under Labour, it’s the jobsworth. They ban things that shouldn’t be banned, they poke about in our private lives and micro-manage our public spaces, and all they achieve is labelling ordinary law-abiding people ‘criminals’.
This is a waste of all of our time. It’s waste of the government’s time. It’s even, and in some ways most counter-productively, a criminal waste of police time. What on Earth is the point of getting every police officer in the country to stay in and memorise a new law every day, when the problem is that they’re not getting out and enforcing the laws we’ve already got?
Labour’s laws are not for the benefit of the police, or of society – just for the benefit of Labour. These are laws as substitutes for action – laws showered out instead of press releases, to get a winning headline for a day, then someone else can clear up the mess later. Don’t ask the Conservatives to do it, though; you may not realise it from the way they attack Labour in the TV studios, but in Parliament, just as the Tories were even more eager than Labour to wave their pom-poms in support of the Iraq War, the fact is that right now the Conservative “Opposition” are voting in agreement with the Labour Government more times than any “Opposition” since the Second World War. Some change.
It doesn’t have to be like this. Even a lot of people whose knee-jerk response was that if it moves, ban it, can see that this tidal wave of time-wasting actually gets in the way of the practical function it’s supposed to achieve. And for those of us Liberals who don’t like banning things anyway, who’ve been questioning what the point is every step of the way and opposing so many of these crazy new laws on principle, it’s small comfort – to us, to the police officers who don’t have time to do their jobs, and to all the many, many people brought before the courts on stupid little charges that should never have been made up – to say ‘we told you so’.
The centrepiece of the Liberal Democrats’ legislative programme in our General Election Manifesto will be a Freedom Bill, which rather than adding to the pile will start repealing vast swathes of Labour’s bossy, bullying, blatantly unnecessary laws. It can’t come soon enough.
This morning’s indignant piece is for the moment rather linkless, as blogging and Twittering have hit something of a hitch at home: on getting in from a rather impressive few Richard’s birthday burgers together at the Gourmet Burger Bar, where I’d recommend the lamb (if slightly smothered) and the wild boar, and the really serious garlic mayo if you really like garlic (the only garlic dressing I’ve ever had in a restaurant as ferocious as my home-made garlic bread), our evening was slightly put out of kilter by finding our Internet connection had gone down. Actually, I probably shouldn’t write “gone down,” as it’ll add fuel to the censor’s fire, of which there’ll be more in a moment. Anyway, I spent quite some time on the phone last night to Waitrose broadband customer support, and rather more this morning, and there’s good news and bad news. Good news: they made a note on our account last night, so I didn’t have to go through every test all over again. Bad news: this morning’s tests and changes didn’t fix the problem either, or even identify it (sample quote – “Oh, that’s strange” / put on hold with ’80s stadium rock). Good news: they’re sending a new router. Bad news: we’re waiting for a new router…
So I’m out at my local library, which has a tight time limit on how long you can use their computers for (as I discovered when our street had its power cut for a day a fortnight ago – not good if you have no gas, your phones need power and the water in your flat runs from electric pumps – and my library e-mails to EDF Energy were abruptly cut off), in a bit of a rush, even with one I prepared earlier on a memory stick.
And just as I was getting into the swing of publishing Love and Liberty posts at noon daily. Bah. I’ve just done today’s, but can’t actually check what it or any of my other posts look like, as the local library’s over-enthusiastic content protection blocks anyone from viewing my blog – bloody Labour council! And that’s despite several times e-mailing them with examples of just which political websites they’ve auto-banned (including most Lib Dem blogs), and how ludicrous it is for a library to be so dead-set against reading. Richard has suggested that, as this is a Labour council, the word “Liberal” has been put on their anti-terror watch list.
Once we’ve got our connection back, I’d better look up some really interesting porn links to post and give them something worthwhile to ban me for, then…
This is not the trial of Tony Blair, sadly. The Inquiry has no power to lock the bastard up. They don’t even have the power to summon up all the evidence – lots of Mr Blair’s dodgy correspondence promising war in advance has been blocked from view, despite Nick Clegg demanding that the Inquiry must be given all the facts. Still, from the Labour Government that abolished the right to silence, we all know what to infer from that. But I suspect that even Mr Blair’s extraordinary gifts with language will not entirely spare him from wriggling in discomfort under some harder questions than his native chat show sofa puts to him. However deflective or punctured his composure in today’s hearing goes, though, I won’t be the only one to feel a sense of betrayal that, at the end of his testimony, he’ll stroll back to making more extreme wealth from his Premiership rather than be escorted back to the cell he deserves.
Blunkett: Iraq Debates Spoiled My Posh Dinner Parties, So Pity Me
Disgraced former Labour hatchet man, failed Home Secretary, serial waster of police time through making up hundreds of daft new laws and unbelievable media favourite David Blunkett complained on the Today Programme this morning that some newspapers have “never forgiven” Mr Blair for the Iraq War, which is so terribly unfair to a “great” man. Well, fair’s fair: none of you war criminals have ever said sorry or admitted there’s anything to forgive. The flippant answer to such whining pleas usually involves asking Mrs Lincoln how, apart from that, her night at the theatre went, but I just find it difficult to sneer away hundreds of thousands of deaths on Mr Blair’s (and Mr Brown’s, and Mr Straw’s, and Mr Blunkett’s) orders. Or the lies that they used to justify them. Or ignoring all the people who marched and protested, and all the Liberal Democrats’ questions about how it could all go so horribly wrong, and evading responsibility when it all did. Or ignoring all the government lawyers who told them, as the Liberal Democrats did, that their war would be illegal and smash international law into piece – Mr Straw’s response to them, as we heard this week after his leadership-hungry posturing last week as a tortured man of principle, was in fact to boast that he was always being told what he was planning was illegal, and always went ahead and did it anyway. So much for the Rule of Law.
What else did Mr Blunkett plead pity for when he was interviewed this morning? What was his response to being pressed about the repeated outright lie about weapons of mass destruction being ready to launch at Britain within 45 minutes, a three-part claim in which all three parts were untrue and at least two were known to be untrue by the Labour government who sexed them up before misleading the House of Commons and spreading their terrifying lie through their chosen attack-dog newspapers, screaming that everyone who questioned them was a traitor? About the fact that Mr Blair and the rest of the Labour Government claimed that Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction” were “active, detailed and growing” and “beyond doubt” when the evidence before they sexed it up read instead “sporadic and patchy”?
Mr Blunkett’s response was that he wants to be loved, and it was all very hurtful, and that – you may have to stop reading, gentle viewer, lest you burst into tears – he even had to ask people to stop arguing about Iraq over the table because it was upsetting his dinner parties. Oh, the horror. So never let it be said that Labour ministers didn’t suffer just as wretchedly as the people being bombed to blazes.
An Overdose of New Laws? It’s Enough To Drive You To Drink
Something else you may have heard on this morning’s Today Programme is the Labour Government’s latest example of legislative diarrhoea. Today’s new law – well, one of them – is to prohibit “persistent possession of alcohol in a public place” – well, they’ve not banned alliteration, at least. Richard groaned and exclaimed, “Why not just say, ‘You’re under arrest for hanging about’?” Welcome, then, to the Labour Government’s 4,290th law – or 4,291st, or 4,292nd, or have we passed 4,300 yet? And are they in a headlong rush to top 5,000 pointless prohibitions before they’re forced from office?
Just last week, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary Chris Huhne revealed that Labour’s record, while being shamefully poor at achieving anything in the real world, is a sparkling success in the Labour MPs’ imaginations that have cobbled together new legislation in ever-greater torrents. A couple of years ago, Labour had only inflicted 3,000 new laws on an unenthusiastic public; but by last week, Chris revealed, the total had rocketed to 4,289. If only manufacturing industry had grown like the manufacturing of legislation, Britain would be a world leader. If only saying the magic words really made it so, Britain would be a shining fairyland. But, instead, Chris pleaded that, if only Labour would stop, think and start repealing some of their ridiculous 4,289 new laws, the rest of us might find it easier to get on with our lives.
Yes, with 4,289 new laws under New Labour as of last week, and still growing rapidly as we heard this morning, Britain may be an international disgrace for joining George Bush’s illegal war, and Britain may be the last major economy to emerge from recession – and even that by the most Brown-trouseredly microscopic measurement – but Britain is, proudly, a world leader in law-making.
But what’s it for?
Though the Labour Government has produced more new laws than any other government in British history, are we in some way more riotous than ever before? Hardly. Are the police short of powers? Not a bit of it. Can any of us even keep up with this mountain of legislation, and find out exactly what we’re newly outlawed from doing day by day? Not even if it’s our full-time job, I imagine, though if there’s one sort of job that’s been growing as unemployment spirals under Labour, it’s the jobsworth. They ban things that shouldn’t be banned, they poke about in our private lives and micro-manage our public spaces, and all they achieve is labelling ordinary law-abiding people ‘criminals’.
This is a waste of all of our time. It’s waste of the government’s time. It’s even, and in some ways most counter-productively, a criminal waste of police time. What on Earth is the point of getting every police officer in the country to stay in and memorise a new law every day, when the problem is that they’re not getting out and enforcing the laws we’ve already got?
Labour’s Waste of Time; Tories Support Them; Lib Dems Have A Better Answer
Labour’s laws are not for the benefit of the police, or of society – just for the benefit of Labour. These are laws as substitutes for action – laws showered out instead of press releases, to get a winning headline for a day, then someone else can clear up the mess later. Don’t ask the Conservatives to do it, though; you may not realise it from the way they attack Labour in the TV studios, but in Parliament, just as the Tories were even more eager than Labour to wave their pom-poms in support of the Iraq War, the fact is that right now the Conservative “Opposition” are voting in agreement with the Labour Government more times than any “Opposition” since the Second World War. Some change.
It doesn’t have to be like this. Even a lot of people whose knee-jerk response was that if it moves, ban it, can see that this tidal wave of time-wasting actually gets in the way of the practical function it’s supposed to achieve. And for those of us Liberals who don’t like banning things anyway, who’ve been questioning what the point is every step of the way and opposing so many of these crazy new laws on principle, it’s small comfort – to us, to the police officers who don’t have time to do their jobs, and to all the many, many people brought before the courts on stupid little charges that should never have been made up – to say ‘we told you so’.
The centrepiece of the Liberal Democrats’ legislative programme in our General Election Manifesto will be a Freedom Bill, which rather than adding to the pile will start repealing vast swathes of Labour’s bossy, bullying, blatantly unnecessary laws. It can’t come soon enough.
Labour Bans Locally As Well As Nationally (and I have blogging trouble)
This morning’s indignant piece is for the moment rather linkless, as blogging and Twittering have hit something of a hitch at home: on getting in from a rather impressive few Richard’s birthday burgers together at the Gourmet Burger Bar, where I’d recommend the lamb (if slightly smothered) and the wild boar, and the really serious garlic mayo if you really like garlic (the only garlic dressing I’ve ever had in a restaurant as ferocious as my home-made garlic bread), our evening was slightly put out of kilter by finding our Internet connection had gone down. Actually, I probably shouldn’t write “gone down,” as it’ll add fuel to the censor’s fire, of which there’ll be more in a moment. Anyway, I spent quite some time on the phone last night to Waitrose broadband customer support, and rather more this morning, and there’s good news and bad news. Good news: they made a note on our account last night, so I didn’t have to go through every test all over again. Bad news: this morning’s tests and changes didn’t fix the problem either, or even identify it (sample quote – “Oh, that’s strange” / put on hold with ’80s stadium rock). Good news: they’re sending a new router. Bad news: we’re waiting for a new router…
So I’m out at my local library, which has a tight time limit on how long you can use their computers for (as I discovered when our street had its power cut for a day a fortnight ago – not good if you have no gas, your phones need power and the water in your flat runs from electric pumps – and my library e-mails to EDF Energy were abruptly cut off), in a bit of a rush, even with one I prepared earlier on a memory stick.
And just as I was getting into the swing of publishing Love and Liberty posts at noon daily. Bah. I’ve just done today’s, but can’t actually check what it or any of my other posts look like, as the local library’s over-enthusiastic content protection blocks anyone from viewing my blog – bloody Labour council! And that’s despite several times e-mailing them with examples of just which political websites they’ve auto-banned (including most Lib Dem blogs), and how ludicrous it is for a library to be so dead-set against reading. Richard has suggested that, as this is a Labour council, the word “Liberal” has been put on their anti-terror watch list.
Once we’ve got our connection back, I’d better look up some really interesting porn links to post and give them something worthwhile to ban me for, then…
Labels: British Politics, Conservatives, Food, Iraq, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Meddling In Things That Are Nobody's Business But Your Own, Personal, The Today Programme
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
As Alex isn't around to delete the comment, I just thought I'd point out for anyone passing who is confused that Mr Craig, who left the above comment, is a rather strange man who thinks (possibly justifiably - I know very little of the conflict) that Britain's intervention in the former Yugoslavia was unjustified.
He also thinks, with rather less justification, that this makes all members of the Liberal Democrats, a party of which he is I believe a former member, racist Nazi war criminals who are knowingly complicit in genocide.
The most charitable interpretation one can put on his actions, after a few months' exposure to his comments on many political blogs, accusing various people of committing genocide (including myself, and I'm pretty sure I haven't committed any genocides - I'm quite absent-minded but it's the kind of thing I'm fairly sure I'd remember doing) is that he is a severely deluded man suffering from some kind of mental illness who sincerely believes that the entire world is conspiring against him.
Other people have rather less charitable views...
He also thinks, with rather less justification, that this makes all members of the Liberal Democrats, a party of which he is I believe a former member, racist Nazi war criminals who are knowingly complicit in genocide.
The most charitable interpretation one can put on his actions, after a few months' exposure to his comments on many political blogs, accusing various people of committing genocide (including myself, and I'm pretty sure I haven't committed any genocides - I'm quite absent-minded but it's the kind of thing I'm fairly sure I'd remember doing) is that he is a severely deluded man suffering from some kind of mental illness who sincerely believes that the entire world is conspiring against him.
Other people have rather less charitable views...
People who do know the subject have been equally unable to dispute that factually that war was deliberately instigated by, among others, the LibDems to promote racial genocide (& worse) in the Nazi cause.
Automatically that makes the party leaders guilty of genocide & those who support the party in doing so, complicit in what has been done.
You may not have noticed participating inn genocide as, I'm sure, people who handed over Jews didn't notice but nonetheless that is what happened.
I doubt if you possess the medical qualifications to make that diagnosis but will apologise if it proves you have. Otherwise you are just engaging in rudeness to avoid facing facts.
Perhaps I am paranoid in thinking "LibDems" are in some way so illiberal as to practice censorship but experience overwhelmingly shows otherwise.
Automatically that makes the party leaders guilty of genocide & those who support the party in doing so, complicit in what has been done.
You may not have noticed participating inn genocide as, I'm sure, people who handed over Jews didn't notice but nonetheless that is what happened.
I doubt if you possess the medical qualifications to make that diagnosis but will apologise if it proves you have. Otherwise you are just engaging in rudeness to avoid facing facts.
Perhaps I am paranoid in thinking "LibDems" are in some way so illiberal as to practice censorship but experience overwhelmingly shows otherwise.
Actually, I'm trying to *avoid* rudeness, by assuming you suffer from an illness rather than being motivated by malice...
Well avoided.
I mean avoiding acknowledging or attempting any factual dispute whatsoever that your party & thus you, are guilty of atrocities even Hitler didn't manage (as indeed everybody else in the party studiously avoids noticing).
To the best of my knowledge we have never met so I have no reason for malice - but I do consider truth to be important.
I mean avoiding acknowledging or attempting any factual dispute whatsoever that your party & thus you, are guilty of atrocities even Hitler didn't manage (as indeed everybody else in the party studiously avoids noticing).
To the best of my knowledge we have never met so I have no reason for malice - but I do consider truth to be important.
*sigh*
OK, Neil, your insightful prosecutorial skills have prised the truth out of me. My pose as a pacifist member of Amnesty International is a cleverly-constructed secret identity and I am in fact Doctor Josef Mengele. I've been in hiding all these years and only you have discovered it.
I also wrote Battlefield Earth, encouraged Mike Love of the Beach Boys to make a solo album, told Warner Brothers that the Catwoman film would be a guaranteed hit, sing lead for Coldplay, and made Wagon Wheels smaller. I am the world's greatest criminal genius and only you have ever managed to expose my dastardly deeds!
Alex, sorry for feeding the troll. Just didn't want his nonsense to be left on your blog but unrefuted. Please feel free to delete all my comments when you delete Neil's ramblings...
OK, Neil, your insightful prosecutorial skills have prised the truth out of me. My pose as a pacifist member of Amnesty International is a cleverly-constructed secret identity and I am in fact Doctor Josef Mengele. I've been in hiding all these years and only you have discovered it.
I also wrote Battlefield Earth, encouraged Mike Love of the Beach Boys to make a solo album, told Warner Brothers that the Catwoman film would be a guaranteed hit, sing lead for Coldplay, and made Wagon Wheels smaller. I am the world's greatest criminal genius and only you have ever managed to expose my dastardly deeds!
Alex, sorry for feeding the troll. Just didn't want his nonsense to be left on your blog but unrefuted. Please feel free to delete all my comments when you delete Neil's ramblings...
Thank you very much, Andrew, for diving in in my absence!
And a happy new year to you, too, Mr Craig. It’s refreshing, at least, that you’ve cut-and-pasted your usual spiteful fantasies in a way that’s remotely on-topic, for once. Are you feeling quite well? Last time I heard from you was a few months ago, when you crayoned over 873 Lib Dem blogs at exactly the same time. The daubing I had was chucked over a Doctor Who review, I remember, which is more your usual standard of relevance.
Readers may well be wondering how those “evil” Lib Dems are “censoring” you. Complaining to the government, perhaps, or your ISP, or mounting vicious denial-of-service cyber-attacks to shut your blog? Or just deleting the 73rd time you’ve screamed exactly the same thing over an article about sorting out their local lamp-posts?
Did you hear about that guy who exercised his freedom of speech by standing outside the same woman’s house at 3am every night, screaming up that she was a Nazi space lizard, and daubing accusations in bright green paint across her wall over and over? Then, one night, she finally snapped, opened her window and shouted down, ‘Just shut up, you loony!’ What an evil censor she was.
Which is a long way of saying, there’s your cut-and-paste screed for free for this year, and you can come back if you ever in your life have something new to say.
Post a Comment
And a happy new year to you, too, Mr Craig. It’s refreshing, at least, that you’ve cut-and-pasted your usual spiteful fantasies in a way that’s remotely on-topic, for once. Are you feeling quite well? Last time I heard from you was a few months ago, when you crayoned over 873 Lib Dem blogs at exactly the same time. The daubing I had was chucked over a Doctor Who review, I remember, which is more your usual standard of relevance.
Readers may well be wondering how those “evil” Lib Dems are “censoring” you. Complaining to the government, perhaps, or your ISP, or mounting vicious denial-of-service cyber-attacks to shut your blog? Or just deleting the 73rd time you’ve screamed exactly the same thing over an article about sorting out their local lamp-posts?
Did you hear about that guy who exercised his freedom of speech by standing outside the same woman’s house at 3am every night, screaming up that she was a Nazi space lizard, and daubing accusations in bright green paint across her wall over and over? Then, one night, she finally snapped, opened her window and shouted down, ‘Just shut up, you loony!’ What an evil censor she was.
Which is a long way of saying, there’s your cut-and-paste screed for free for this year, and you can come back if you ever in your life have something new to say.
<< Home
