Author
|
Topic: UK Election Thread II
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 07 May 2005 02:46 PM
Can we please continue our discussion here?Quoting Stockholm's last post in the too long thread: quote: I'm not a Zionist. If I was I would be living in Israel not in Canada.I don't understand your point about other parties representing the dominant ethnicity. The British Labour Party is not some colonizing English Party that just wants to subjugate Scotland. In fact many of its leading figures are Scottish!
[ 07 May 2005: Message edited by: lagatta ]
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 07 May 2005 02:52 PM
Sorry, lagatta. Before I saw this good idea -- let's move it over here -- I was too busy barfing on the old thread at Stockholm's pride in Tony Blair's (entirely technical) Scottishness. Oh, Stockholm: that was just so ... tribal! of you. Tony Blair was born in Scotland. That's it. He doesn't even represent a Scottish riding (probably because he couldn't get elected in one).
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 07 May 2005 02:58 PM
No problem, skdadl (or Stockholm). Here is your last post, and the post by Stockholm it is a response to:quote: --------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Stockholm: The British Labour Party is not some colonizing English Party that just wants to subjugate Scotland. In fact many of its leading figures are Scottish! --------------------------------------------------------------- Quoting skdadl: Oh, barf. Oh, triple barf. Oh, quintuple barf. Barf barf barf. ---- In fairness, I thought Stockholm was referring to Gordon Brown, who is certainly a Scot, and to the many other Scots (Labour and SNP) who swept the Tories out of Scotland. But Stockholm, you have consistently taken pro-Zionist positions on the board. That is not a put-down, just an observation. Why is forming a new country on someone else's land a proper response to oppression and not the right of minority peoples to be their own country if they so choose? By the way, I certainly consider myself a hardline internationalist.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717
|
posted 07 May 2005 04:04 PM
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page4.aspThe son of a barrister and lecturer, Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh, but spent most of his childhood in Durham. At the age of 14 he returned to Edinburgh to finish his education at Fettes College. He studied law at Oxford, and went on to become a barrister himself. Durham is, of course, in North-East England. Obviously, this is some nefarious plot by evil Scottish Nationalists to discredit the Scottish roots of Mr Blair. Just like we did with Rod Stewart.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 07 May 2005 04:20 PM
quote: What matters, I s'pose, is that Blair does not represent a Scottish riding, not that it would matter to him all that much which riding he represents.
The British are not as fussy as we Canadians are about people representing ridings that they actually have any connection to - let alone live in. It is totally routine for Labour front benchers to get elected in supersafe working class ridings in Scotland or in the North of England that they might visit maybe once a year or so. No one seems to care. the Tories do the same. Malcolm Rifkind was the Tory leader in Scotland. he lost his seat in Edinburgh in 1997. In this election he got elected in the Kensington and Chelsea riding in London. No one cares.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717
|
posted 07 May 2005 04:22 PM
Stockholm wants us to address this - quote: Originally posted by Stockholm:
I never equated the SNP with the BNP. That's not my point. The only point I'm making - which no one seems to want to address - is that I philosophically have an intense dislike of parties that are based on an appeal to nationalism or tribalism. I reject, the SNP, I reject Plaid Cymru, I reject all the parties in northern Irelanbd except the small Alliance Party and maybe the SDLP, I reject the Basque nationalist parties in Spain, I reject the BQ/PQ and if you can think of any other etnnically based parties in the world, I'm sure I reject them too. To me when people start voting purely on the basis of their ethnicity/nationalsity - its bad news for humanity. I prefer people to vote for parties that do NOT attempt to appeal to nationalism. I like parties that openly want votes from people of all races, all religions, all parts of the country, all nationalities. [ 07 May 2005: Message edited by: Stockholm ]
What I do not understand is his ideological position that any nationalist party must be ethnically nationalist - this is particularly untrue in Scottish politics. Let's look at how the two most vocal nationalist parties from Scotland address this. The SNP http://www.snp.org/independence/why/ The primary aim of the SNP is to take Scotland forward to Independence. Independence means the Scottish Parliament having full control over Scottish affairs, and the right to decide when to share power with others. Devolution is not enough for Scotland. Independence would give us the same rights and the same responsibilities as other nations. It would give us a voice on the world stage and a say in international bodies like the UN and EU. And Independence would bring greater freedom for individuals, families and communities, within a society built on common interests. http://www.snp.org/independence/yourquestions/anewcountry/3.1 The opponents of Independence often use the word “nationalism” to mean ethnic strife, intolerance or isolation. Obviously, the SNP rejects any of these as deserving any place in Scotland. Nationalism, like many other political ideas, can indeed be misused, but not when it is founded in democracy and a respect for human rights. People know that what the SNP promotes is civic nationalism. That means that we believe all who live in Scotland have a valued part to play in our new country, regardless of their place of birth or ethnic background. We pursue our goal by exclusively peaceful and democratic means. That’s why so many people of different national backgrounds, and large numbers in Scotland’s ethnic minority communities, vote SNP. The SNP’s nationalism is about Scotland ending its present isolation, and regaining its place in the international community as a tolerant, outward-looking country. http://www.snp.org/independence/yourquestions/europeandtheworld/oneunionfornanother There is no comparison between the centralist structures of the UK, and those of the EU, where member states co-operate but retain their sovereignty. Europe is a forum for independent countries to work together. It is certainly not a unitary, centralised state like the UK. Nobody would seriously say that EU states like Finland or Italy are not independent countries. But as part of the UK, Scotland has no Independence. For instance, the Scottish Parliament, even were it to use all the tax powers available to it, would still only control 5% of its revenues. If we were an independent country, we would control 99% of them - everything except our EU receipts. There is clearly no comparison between these two kinds of union. Becoming independent within the EU doesn't give any power away to Brussels - at present Scotland doesn't have any sovereignty at all. Furthermore, with only region status in the EU, Scotland has to implement EU decisions that it has no role in shaping. Therefore Independence in Europe gives Scotland a say in Brussels it has never had before. That will allow us to play our part in ensuring that the EU acts as a buffer to the excesses of globalisation, as well as stands up for the economic and environmental issues that matter to all of Europe's citizens. Though the SNP is a strongly pro-European party, like most people in Europe, the SNP wants national governments to retain control over many key issues like their countries' taxation, spending, and constitutions. http://www.snp.org/independence/yourquestions/constitution/rights The SNP has prepared a draft text for a Scottish Constitution, first adopted in 1977, subsequently updated in 2003. This includes a binding and entrenched Charter of Rights, which will comply with, and surpass the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, which Scotland will continue to be a party to after Independence. The Charter of Rights guarantees the right to: a fair trial; freedom of thought, speech and worship; freedom of the press; freedom of assembly and the right to form a trade union; the right to housing and free health care and education; the right to property; the right to work and the right to support for those unable to work; the right to freedom of information; and the right to use Gaelic as one of Scotland’s official languages. Other rights contained in this constitution include: a right of responsible access to the countryside; a right of freedom from restrictive trade practices; freedom from persecution for those who seek asylum in Scotland; a right to dignity in old age; a right to privacy; and the right to vote for all citizens over 16 resident in Scotland. http://www.snp.org/about/about_html The SNP is a democratic left-of-centre political party committed to Scottish Independence. It aims to create a just, caring and enterprising society by releasing Scotland's full potential as an independent nation in the mainstream of modern Europe. The SSP http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/ The SSP is an anti-capitalist party which has refashioned socialism for the new Scotland of the 21st century. Our goal is to build a socialist Scotland that will stand up to global capitalism and spearhead the fight for a socialist Europe and ultimately a socialist world. The SSP is a pro-independence party which stands for the break-up of the British state and the creation of a free Scottish socialist republic. The SSP is an internationalist party which stands on the side of the poor, the exploited and the oppressed across the world. The SSP is an anti-imperialist party which opposes the wars of the rich and powerful against the weak and powerless. The SSP is a democratic party based on the principle of one person one vote. We do not have all-powerful leaders directing the party from above. The SSP was founded at the end of 1998. It is already one of the strongest parties of the left in Europe, with six members of the Scottish Parliament, thousands of individual members, and a network of scores of branches stretching from the Northern Isles to the English border. We also have many associate members outside Scotland who back the work of the SSP politically and financially. http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/pages/aboutus.html The S.S.P. stands for an Independent Socialist Scotland as part of a worldwide fight-back against global capitalism. The party is involved in a wide range of local, national and international campaigns against exploitation and injustice. We campaign inside and outside of parliament for socialist change. From supporting trade-unionists in struggle, to opposing the madness of nuclear weapons, the SSP is in the forefront. Among the campaigns we are involved in are: For free, nutritious school meals for all school children in Scotland. For the abolition of warrant sales. For a Scottish Service Tax - a fair alternative to the council tax that will make the rich pay their share. For decent housing for all - oppose council house sell-offs. No to privatisation of our public services. Reform the drugs laws - cut the link with the dealers - legalise cannabis. No to racism - asylum seekers welcome. Opposition to war and racism - no to Bush and Blair's wars. Solidarity with those struggling for justice around the world - in Palestine, Colombia and many other places. May 1st 2003 saw six SSP members elected to the Scottish Parliament. They will join Tommy Sheridan in fighting for the interests of working class people in Scotland and giving a voice for the struggles that are taking place in the workplaces and communities around the country. Our MSP's, like all SSP representatives, take no more than the average wage for their work in the parliament, and donate the remainder back to help the cause of socialism. http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/election03/manifesto1.html#two Here in Scotland, we stand for an independent socialist republic that can become an international symbol of fairness and justice, a Scotland that will resist and defy the fatcats and the warlords. We live in a country that is scarred by poverty, low pay, decaying public services, sub-standard housing, ill health, crime, alcohol and hard drug abuse. Yet we have a skilled, educated workforce and natural resources in abundance. This glaring contradiction between the potential and the reality has one simple explanation: the people of Scotland have no real control over the resources of this country. The Scottish Socialist Party is a pro-independence party. Our goal is to create an independent socialist Scottish republic. After centuries of centralised rule from London, the establishment of an elected Scottish Parliament represented an important democratic advance. It opened up the government of Scotland to greater public scrutiny and accountability than ever before. At the same time, the partial PR system ensures that the parliament in Edinburgh more accurately reflects the diversity of Scottish political opinion than either the Westminster parliament or local government. Nonetheless, as it stands, the Scottish Parliament is a PG certificate parliament whose powers are heavily censored by the grown-ups down in Westminster. Just look at the powers Holyrood doesn't have: It has no power to prevent Scotland being press-ganged into George Bush's imminent blitzkrieg against the people of Iraq. It has no power to rid Scotland of the monstrous weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde. It has no power to welcome refugees fleeing persecution and poverty into our underpopulated country. It has no power over our vast oil reserves, our electricity, our gas or our nuclear power plants. It has no power to increase the pitifully low state pension, or to end the degrading means tests forced on our elderly citizens. It has no power to combat exploitation in the private sector by raising the disgracefully low level of the national minimum wage. It has no power to force big business to pay its fair share of taxation. It has no power to scrap our draconian anti-trade union laws which are outrageously biased in favour of employers. It has no power to break the power of criminal drugs gangs by legalising and licensing the sale and use of cannabis. It has no power to scrap or reduce VAT on domestic fuel or other basic necessities It has no power to set its own overall spending budget, or even to borrow money to finance extra spending. It can only shuffle money around. It has no power even to choose its own electoral system. A vote for the SSP is a vote to shake off Westminster rule and bring all of these powers under the democratic control of the Scottish people. It is also a vote to use these powers to transform Scotland into a 21st century socialist democracy. We reject the scaremongering of those who claim that Scotland is too small, too weak, or too poor to go it alone and defy the new world order of the global billionaires. We repudiate the fictional claim that in the new globalised economy an independent Scotland would be powerless to tax the rich, wipe out poverty or initiate large-scale investment in public services. Britain has a top tax rate of just 40 per cent. It also has some of the most dilapidated public services in the European Union and a poverty rate of 30 per cent. In contrast, Denmark, a small independent nation the size of Scotland, has a 63 per cent top rate taxation. It also has some of the most impressive public services in the world and a child poverty rate of just five per cent. Another small country with high quality public services and lavish social welfare programmes is Norway. Like Scotland, Norway has a massive oil industry. But in Norway, most of the oil industry is publicly owned, generating vast revenues for public spending. Even the private oil companies in Norway are forced to pay 78 per cent tax on their profits, compared to 40 per cent paid by oil companies in the UK. Neither Denmark and Norway are socialist countries. Right wing parties are currently in power in both. In common with the UK, both states are monarchies. Yet some of the economic and social policies implemented in these two small countries lay bare many of the myths that have been swallowed whole by Scotland's four mainstream parties. Yes, you can tax the rich. Yes, you can have public ownership of North Sea oil and other profitable industries. Yes you can impose higher taxes on big business. Yes, you can invest in top quality public services. It is not economics, but politics that dictates that big business in Scotland and across the UK makes sky-high profits while poverty runs rampant and public services disintegrate.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 07 May 2005 04:23 PM
quote: It is totally routine for Labour front benchers to get elected in supersafe working class ridings in Scotland or in the North of England that they might visit maybe once a year or so. No one seems to care.the Tories do the same. Malcolm Rifkind was the Tory leader in Scotland. he lost his seat in Edinburgh in 1997. In this election he got elected in the Kensington and Chelsea riding in London. No one cares.
Gotcha. All those Labour leaders you were talking about earlier, Stockholm, who do so much for Scotland -- but och, some of them are just like ... Malcolm Rifkind. Indeed, they are. And a lot of Scots know it. You haven't looked at the stats that SLB gave you at the end of the other thread, have you, Stockholm? And what the hell is a socialist doing apologizing for upper-class-twit Brits who "don't seem to care"?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717
|
posted 07 May 2005 04:26 PM
quote: Originally posted by skdadl: Fettes College: General de Chastelain also went there. Come to think of it, though, so did Thorfinn, and he is very Scottish. At least some of the Scots who went didn't work at losing their accents. What matters, I s'pose, is that Blair does not represent a Scottish riding, not that it would matter to him all that much which riding he represents.
Not that it matters, I'd say he was English - English family, most of his childhood spent in England, went to an upper-crust private school in Edinburgh, English university, adult life spent living and working in England, representing an English riding. Of course, this doesn't really mean very much in wider terms, if he wants to consider himself Scots (though I don't think I've seen him say that), that's perfectly fine - like I intimated, Rod Stewart considers himself a Scot, despite being born and raised in London - that's perfectly fine.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717
|
posted 07 May 2005 09:08 PM
Actually, this is the result of the 1979 referendum.http://www.answers.com/topic/scotland-referendum-1979 For the assembly - 1,230,937 votes (51.6 %) Against the assembly - 1,153,500 votes (48.4 %) Labour and the SNP were both split over the referendum, and internal politics within the Labour Party (Robin Cook, for instance, opposed the devolution plan while Gordon Brown was very strongly for it) led to the imposition of a 40% rule, stating that if the referendum did not achieve that threshold it would be considered void. There were notorious problems with the electoral roll in the referendum (familiar, anyone?) leading to accusations of multiple 'no' voting, and the dead being allowed a vote. Basically, the referendum was a mess. Thus, despite the Scottish MP's voting in favour in the house (41 to 19), the Scotland Act (the act setting up the devolved assembly) was repealed. 1997 was clearly a different story. http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/devolution/scotland/live/index.shtml I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament. 1,775,045 74.3% I do not agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament. 614,400 25.7% I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers. 1,512,889 63.5% I do not agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers. 870,263 36.5% Overall Turnout: 60.4%
[ 07 May 2005: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717
|
posted 09 May 2005 01:09 AM
quote: Originally posted by NDP Newbie: I hope Paisley gets gunned down by the IRA. I'm depressed that he hasn't already:http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/1678/ian.html He's all but justified the Holocaust here.
Oh, he's done worse. Much worse.
'Reverend' Paisley is possibly the worst elected politician in the English-speaking world.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962
|
posted 09 May 2005 10:17 AM
I'll be stating the obvious for many on this thread, but the impact of London on how Britain is run is remarkable. I can't think of another country (offhand) whose population is so focused on a single city.To put it in perspective, Sheffield is the fourth largest UK city, with a population of something like 500,000 people. Then there comes Glasgow (600,000 IIRC), Birmingham (about a million) and London is tops at 7 million, more like 12 if you count all the satellite communities. Staggeringly huge and nothing even approaching it elsewhere. By contrast, although in Canada people complain about the effect of Ontario and Quebec being so big, there are comparable populations and populations centers elsewhere: Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, etc. This all creates an enormous 'gravity' effect where effectively the entire country services London to a certain degree. People and goods gravitate to London and pretty much never leave it. It's a very bad state of affairs for everyone not living within spitting distance of the M25. Unfortunately, Whitehall has traditionally been set up to make decisions and apply them to the country as a whole, without regional exceptions, so there's no easy remedy to the 'problem' of London. That's where parties like the SNP come in. If you don't believe that these parties have had some effect in Whitehall, consider this: Now, regions within *England* are starting to make noises about devolving some powers to 'regional assemblies'. Here in the North East, we've got similar problems to Scotland: declining industry, declining population, no easy redress. Despite BNP advances up Newcastle-way, this region seriously needs immigration not only to provide diversity, but to fuel new business initiatives and create jobs. But since immigration policy (and I'm betting we see a quota system before long, bastards) is set in London and with an eye to London's problems, since that's where the bulk of immigrants end up, immigration is controlled when it should be encouraged for people willing to move to the North or Scotland or Wales.
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674
|
posted 09 May 2005 10:37 AM
it's odd, isn't it. i mean, you wouldn't say that sheffield is the 3rd most important british city outside of london. you would say edinburgh, liverpool and manchester, followed closely by newcastle and nottingham. brighton also is the home to a lot of movers and shakers. so, it's not a matter of sheer size, it's about the concentration of power, money and influence.one thing about london and the election, it really went against the feeling that the conservatives are standing still. the telegraph: quote: The one part of the country that behaved more consistently was London and adjacent parts of the South East. Here Labour took a hammering and the main wielders of the hammer were the Conservatives. The Tories suffered no losses in or near London and gained Croydon Central, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hornchurch, Ilford North, Putney and Wimbledon.
as well, this is interesting:
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 09 May 2005 04:14 PM
maybe this is oem weird European cultural thing where people have this aversion to the idea of more local control and local democracy.I think that in Canada if you had a referendum on giving any region, municipality or province greater autonomy - it would be like a motherhood issue and no one would oppose it. But in Europe, there seems to be this big resistence to decentralization. They had a referendum on more autonomy for Corsica. A majority voted NO and said "No thanks, we prefer being ruled directly by Paris". Wales only voted Yes to a Welsh assembly by a 51-49 margin. Various regions in England seem to be in no mood to get any regional autonomy. I don't get it.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 28 May 2005 06:02 PM
Tony Blair once promised the former Liberal leader Paddy Ashdown not only a referendum on proportional representation but his personal support. quote: Lord Ashdown probably has a unique insight into Tony Blair's views on PR, which proved the stumbling block during their intense negotiations on forming a Lab-Lib coalition with some Liberal Democrats joining the Cabinet.Lord Ashdown made a Labour commitment to a referendum on PR a condition of such a deal. Although talks continued after Labour won a landslide in 1997, the majority strengthened the hand of senior ministers who urged Mr Blair not to concede -- notably John Prescott, and Jack Straw, who was then Home Secretary. Mr Blair discussed the option of him declaring before a referendum that he had become convinced change to the voting system was necessary - which Lord Ashdown agreed would be enough to secure a deal. In 1996, Mr Blair told Lord Ashdown: "I can personally deliver to you what I think you want but I must get Gordon [Brown] on board." He said Mr Brown was "still in favour of first- past-the-post". Asked if he feels he was betrayed by Mr Blair, Lord Ashdown replied: "No." He believes the Prime Minister was as "serious and sincere" as he was about their joint project to realign Britain's two centre-left parties. Lord Ashdown believes "tribal forces" in the Labour Party proved too strong. But he does not blame Mr Blair, which surprises some colleagues, who suspect the Prime Minister was raising false hopes all along. A week after the 1997 election, when discussing a commission on electoral reform, Mr Blair told Lord Ashdown: "I won't let Jack [Straw] scupper this."
(Discussion continued from here.) [ 28 May 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 29 June 2005 03:03 AM
Britain's tipping-point election: quote: . . . a growing number of New Labour representatives and party workers are joining frustrated voters and the less party-biased commentators in a troubled surmise. Just how and why did they win on 5 May? Can such a farce ever be repeated? For sound reasons, people are worried about whether such a system can continue at all without serious reforms. Tony Blair’s party won a solid, 63-seat majority in a House of Commons of 646 members, on the basis of 35.3% of the votes . . . couldn’t the New Labour tendency itself fall victim . . ? It is this dread that’s turning responsible establishment chaps to thoughts of fairness and proportional representation (PR), and even to an elected senate replacing the House of Dead Lordship. Their last such flirtation, in the mid-1990s, came at a time when they still feared permanent marginalisation. New Labour briefly took out insurance with the reformers: even PR seemed better than oblivion. Then they won big in 1997, and it all went from the backburner to the icebox. Now, it’s being quietly brought out again, just in case … There are cold reasons of political logic. The party that made the most significant progress on 5 May was the one which had made constitutional reform its main priority, Charles Kennedy’s Liberal Democrats. They gained 62 seats, eleven more than in 2001, with 22.1% of votes (as Kennedy bitterly remarked, one of the minor miracles of first-past-the-post voting is that it took 96,378 votes to elect a LibDem MP, and merely 26,877 to instal a Labourite). Even more important, the devolved Welsh and Scottish parliaments created since 1998 have used PR, and coalition governments of New Labour and Lib Dems have been working quite well there. Fairness there did not prove fatal; Scots and Welsh voters are not hankering for the good old days. a vigorous campaign has sprung up . . It has already forced the formation of a new all-party group to discuss reform of the House of Commons itself. Labour MP Austin Mitchell comments that: “electoral reform has come back from the dead with this election ... I think the whole issue will revive. Each party has its own electoral reform group and we’re looking for a consensus.”
[ 29 June 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|