Snigger

Barrister Andrew Bird, on behalf of the Home Secretary, claimed that Apata wasn’t “part of the social group known as lesbians,” although he conceded that she had “indulged in same-sex activity.”

“You can’t be a heterosexual one day and a lesbian the next day. Just as you can’t change your race,” he added during the hearing.

Lordy me. Dunno if it’s the barrister, the solicitor instructing him or someone in the Home Office with such views. But a tad archaic maybe?

However, the Home Office has refused to recognise her sexuality – arguing she can’t be classified as a lesbian because she has children from a previous heterosexual relationship.

Shades of “Would you want your wife or servants to read this”

74 thoughts on “Snigger”

  1. Yy would be hard pressed to find a Nigerian barrister arguing the same. And she would have difficulty making the argument in Nigeria. And that just might be the test the court applies here. So Andrew Bird’s opinion is as irrelevant as it is stupid.

  2. bloke (not) in spain

    ” Apata has even submitted footage and photographic evidence of her sex life to prove that she is homosexual. ”

    Normally there’d be a market for that. But looking at her… a very small & specialised one.

  3. If gay people didn’t have kids through normal heterosexual interactions there’d be a lot fewer kids within my Bacon orbits 1 through 3.

  4. Well, this is where you end up when you argue for congenital determinism. If people are born gay, they’re either gay or they’re not. Hence this. And if you argue that gay is a choice that some people might make sometimes and then change their mind, you’re a homophobe.

    So indeed, according to gay orthodoxy, she isn’t a lesbian.

    On the other hand, according to feminism, she would be a lesbian if she made a conscious political decision to, to quote Sheila Jeffries, “not fuck men”. But that view seems to have lost out to the congenital determinist view.

    So Andrew Bird and the Home Office are the politically correct view. Jolly good.

  5. Perhaps the Home Office would be better off arguing that she can’t be given asylum here because she’s conveniently snogged a woman a couple of times for the express purpose of taking advantage of our policy?

    “Staying in Britain means staying safe, staying with my partner and continuing my campaigning.”

    I have nothing but admiration for those who stand up to unjust laws, thereby risking their lives. And nothing but contempt for those who seek to do it from a place of safety, risking nothing.

  6. bloke (not) in spain

    I apologise for my thoughtless & offensive comment, above. I didn’t realise we were taking the subject seriously.

  7. Personally by the way I think that under the law as it stands, she does have a right to stay. But then, I am not a congenital determinist.

  8. I was just saying to my mates in the pub the other night that congenital determinism would be the ruin of us.

  9. Sorry, in my excitement at having a poke at the tin man, I forgot to say that it’s getting to the stage where other countries are going to have to offer asylum to witch hunt victims. Get out the country before Plod declares that you were attending Satanic infant murder parties in 1975. Never has it been more dangerous to be gay- or indeed just alive- several decades ago.

  10. “Operation Midland” eh.

    I bet the coppers wanted to call it Operation Middlesex but the didn’t have the non-PC balls.

    Another opening salvo at the polits. Much as I hate the denizens of the HOC the last thing this country needs is this kind of lunacy extended to the centre of “power”. The state is all about violent coercion. To have that already abusive “power” under the sway of batshit-crazy femministas and their leftist allies is a horrific prospect.

  11. I’ve been expecting Proctor to get trawled. Calling somebody a Harvey Proctor was standard playground slang for poofter for a while, like “Joey” stood in for “spazz”.

  12. It is such a pity this blog is inhabited by conspiracy theory nutters who always ALWAYS seem to think that a sex offender’s conviction is a stitch up.
    I’m pleased this lady will get a fair hearing and the court will work hard to weigh up her claim of being homosexuality.
    I’m equally pleased that justice has finally been done for the victims of Rolf Harris, Max Clifford, Stuart Hall and for this poor girls in Rotherham and Oxfordshire.

  13. You don’t think it’s just slightly possible that the claim that a ring of MPs were sacrificing little boys at parties might just be a conspiracy theory itself, Ironman?

  14. I think it’s highly likely to be a left-wing smear; it’s what they do.

    That is a world away, however, from the fair trials and convictions of those men who assaulted girls and women. So, if it comes to trial we’ll find out won’t we.

  15. On Saville – Anna Racoon’s blog has been good at collating the investigations into specific allegations, most of which can’t even find evidence Saville was ever at the location claimed, let alone that any wrongdoing took place. I am not aware of any specific allegation being proved to a blance of probabilites, let alone beyond reasonable doubt.

  16. Philip Scott Thomas

    “You can’t be a heterosexual one day and a lesbian the next day. Just as you can’t change your race”

    Eh? Lipstick lesbianism? Anne Heche?

  17. I think it’s highly likely to be a left-wing smear; it’s what they do.

    Ah, so you’re fine with that conspiracy theory then. Jolly good.

  18. So anyway, back on topic, the problem here is this; if we say that somebody can indeed be straight one day and lesbian the next- or vice versa- then the whole idea of gay by birth falls apart and, worse than that, one has to entertain the possibility that, for instance, a person can change their sexual preference by therapy- which is considered entirely verboten at the moment.

    So something has got to give, ideologically.

  19. No I’m not fine with calling that a conspiracy theory because it isn’t. A conspiracy theorist who doesn’t know what one is, fucking he’ll!

    And I repeat Squander ‘ s observatiom: apparently disinterested but so very, very interested. That is both curious and odd.

    Btw: I am doing something very right when the abuse comes from the three guys who write the longest, most rambling, most neurotic and outright bonkers comments on the blog.

    So once again in defence of reality and jury trials: Harris, Hall, Clifford, Travis, Glitter all guilty as sin. Jim Davidson not guilty and not charged. Bill Roche, innocent and acquitted when the jury heard the evidence. That’s English Law. That is trial by jury on this country.

  20. IanB

    “…then the whole idea of gay by birth falls apart…”

    Non sequitur. There could still be an inherited genetic disposition to be on a spectrum of homosexuality. I am not saying you are wrong in your conclusions – only pointing out that they don’t follow from your premises.

  21. Bizarre. I’ve never claimed to be “disinterested”; as you point out, I’m clearly very interested in the whole subject, and have been since it first erupted as the Satanic Ritual Abuse panic.

    Why was I interested in that? Initially to be honest because I was a much more militant atheist (Dawkins level back then) and initially saw it as an eruption of dangerous Christian fundamentalism. My views have, as you may observe, changed a lot since then as to the cause, but that’s why I’ve been following the whole panic in its various forms for 30 years. And in that time, the collapse of various commonplace “liberal” values- such as attitudes to sexuality in general- has become part of that interest.

    And I must admit to an additional fascination with debates on the subject as I watch people like yourself trying to argue back from the conclusions you are determined to reach, such that, by the end of the last thread, people were denying any sexual distinction between children and adults at all as you had all painted yourselves into a corner where the only way to equate a 15 year old and a 5 year old was to come out with that bizarre position. (I know that wasn’t specifically you, but it’s where the paedohysteria logic drags everyone caught in its magnetic pull).

    I know I insult you (but then, you insult me) but I’m sure you’re a nice chap really Ironman. But you are trapped in a position which does not bear rational scrutiny. This is a fine position to be in at the moment, since it’s the majority view, but you’re still in that position. I do wish you’d address that.

    There is nothing at all wrong with being interested- even fascinated- by one of the great social issues of our times. But of course, pointing fingers at anyone who doesn’t follow the mob is common enough. Nonetheless, I continue to contend that Old Sarah isn’t a witch, she’s just a lonely old lady with a cat. The mob has got it wrong.

  22. Theophrastus-

    Non sequitur. There could still be an inherited genetic disposition to be on a spectrum of homosexuality. I am not saying you are wrong in your conclusions – only pointing out that they don’t follow from your premises.

    Well, I’m just repeating the line that the gay movement has been pushing- that sexuality is fixed. Which is why we’re now in this mess illustrated by the original post.

  23. IanB
    ‘Disinterested’ can be found in any decent dictionary. After you have looked it up please feel free to return to calling me an idiot.

  24. Interested

    Yes, I am a little surprised her claim was ever disputed.

    I personally would be very sympathetic to any heterosexual women who showed me a lesbo video she’d made to support her claim to stay in the country.

  25. 1. not influenced by considerations of personal advantage:
    “a banker is under an obligation to give disinterested advice”
    synonyms: unbiased · unprejudiced · impartial · neutral · non-partisan

    2. having or feeling no interest in something; uninterested:
    “her father was so disinterested in her progress that he only visited the school once”

    Which one, and what do you mean, Ironman? I was using definition 2.

  26. “I personally would be very sympathetic to any heterosexual women who showed me a lesbo video she’d made to support her claim to stay in the country.”

    Then you are just the sort of gullible moron we don’t want deciding such things.

  27. Gay people can force themselves into hetero sex, just as straight people can force themselves into same-sex sex (prison, for example). If sex was only possible in the presence of desire, rape wouldn’t exist.

  28. FFS

    “I was using definition 2”

    Then you weren’t responding to me! Now go back to.telling me what an idiot I am.

  29. Some people get turned on only by partners of a particular sex. Others can happily swing both ways. There’s a spectrum.

    In practice, people who come out as homosexual in hostile environments are likely to be the ones who have no choice about their sexuality. And it’s those environments which are most likely to attempt to inflict a “cure”. Hence the declaration in those circumstances that homosexuality is innate.

    But surely all this is obvious.

    It’s useful to have different words for different things, so anyone with a feel for language uses “disinterested” in its usual sense of “impartial”, rather than as an alternative form of “uninterested”. It’s revealing that Ian B doesn’t even think of the possibility.

  30. So, I’m supposed to be telepathic now, am I Ironman? I’m supposed to know which definition of a word you are using when either may apply? It looks to me like you’re still the idiot here.

    Now, presuming definition 1, please go ahead and explain what “considerations of personal advantage” I am “influenced by”. I’m fascinated to know what they are.

    Or do you have another special Ironman definition I’m expected to guess?

  31. It’s useful to have different words for different things, so anyone with a feel for language uses “disinterested” in its usual sense of “impartial”, rather than as an alternative form of “uninterested”. It’s revealing that Ian B doesn’t even think of the possibility.

    Revealing of what, exactly, other than that different people use language in slightly different ways? Come on, why is everyone beating about the bush? Out with it!

  32. For the record, thinking about it, in normal conversation I would use definition 2, and something like “impartial” or “unbiased” for definition 1. I’ve a feeling that this is a word that most people use in ways that upset grammar pendants.

  33. IanB

    I see you looked up the Oxford English Dictionary and repeated it here. Suggests to me my meaning had indeed passed you by. Now, back to calling me an idiot; good boy.

  34. Ian B

    “such that, by the end of the last thread, people were denying any sexual distinction between children and adults”

    Interesting.. If you mean yesterday evening, I don’t recall seeing that?

  35. Interestingly (to me), my colleague sat just behind me used to be in the Home Office and used to interview asylum claimants. He tells me he never interviewed a Nigerian who WASN’T gay.

    Also says the Nigerians don’t actually give a shit.

  36. Ironman,

    Only an idiot would use a word with more than one meaning, then think it an intellectual triumph that the other person did not guess the one he meant. And then refuse to elucidate the point he was making.

    Posting the dictionary definition when it is referred to is common enough practise on the internet. I now repeat my question-

    “Now, presuming definition 1, please go ahead and explain what “considerations of personal advantage” I am “influenced by”. I’m fascinated to know what they are.”

  37. PF-

    I made the point which I would have thought was not controversial that humans undergo a qualitative sexual change at puberty. The replies disputed that.

  38. If there are two meanings of a word (and that is disputed here) then the reader usually looks to context for the meaning – “uninterested yet so very very interested” just doesn’t make sense does it.
    But you never considered context did you. One wonders why.
    Now, back you go to calling me an idiot.

  39. @ Ironman – “Nigerians don’t give a shit (about homosexuality)”?

    This is a country where homosexual (but not heterosexual) sodomy has long been a punishable offence, and which last year passed new legislation prescribing prison sentences of up to 14 years, and bans same-sex marriage, intimate relationships with a member of the same sex, and gay organisations, a term which includes all gatherings of homosexuals.

    If they don’t give a shit, they have a funny way of showing it.

  40. bloke (not) in spain

    “Interestingly (to me), my colleague sat just behind me used to be in the Home Office and used to interview asylum claimants. He tells me he never interviewed a Nigerian who WASN’T gay.”

    Frankly, Ironman, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything from a Nigerian I’d believe. If one stood in front of me & announced he was doing so, I’d want to walk round & check he was still visible from the rear.

  41. We send people back to Nigeria who then live perfectly happily and safely despite having claimed publicly to be gay. To be fair they’re not gay are they, so your point is absolutely valid.

  42. “uninterested yet so very very interested” just doesn’t make sense does it.

    Hardly anything you say makes any sense, Ironman, so I just took it as normal.

    Now, answer the question, or are you going to keep dodging with this lexical tomfoolery?

    Oh, and I note that we now have a second mysterious implication- that apparently my taking the word to mean what I did implies something else. What is this thing?

    We are getting a fascinating masterclass here though in precisely the process by which fuckwits start witch hunts. It’s an education in itself.

  43. Ian B

    “PF – I made the point which I would have thought was not controversial that humans undergo a qualitative sexual change at puberty. The replies disputed that.”

    I understand. It’s perhaps nothing more than semantics, but I think that one or two replies yesterday were simply questioning the comment “children don’t have any sexual feelings”.

    And which is very different from “denying any sexual distinction between children and adults”, but yes, I understand better where you are coming from.

  44. PF-

    Thanks. After yesterday evening’s bunfight, I did some more thinking, and the point I’ve been trying to make is something like this: we (rightly) abhor paedophilia/child abuse not because it is merely a crime (in the sense of a violation of rights etc) but because we tend to think (I believe, rightly), that it is more than that; it is against nature. So if we’re going to feel that way about it, we need to look at nature, and indeed nature does give us justification for that opinion. Humans change from a non-sexual to a sexual being at puberty.

    Now, other arguments about protection may be more or less valid regarding older ages. But they are no longer in the “against nature” sphere, which is why we should judge teenagers having sex (with each other, or older people) differently. We think it wise that 14 year olds don’t drive cars or run businesses, but not on the basis of an “against nature” revulsion.

    Which is why I’ve spend discussion after discussion trying to get people to at least recognise that distinction. It’s wrong to rape a five year old, and it’s wrong to grope a fifteen year old, but these two things are fundamentally, qualitatively different. One is against nature, the other is not.

    Ironman et al don’t want to admit that distinction. But it is there. And it is why, for instance, denouncing Jeremy Forrest for his consensual relationship with 15 year old Megan Stammers as a “paedophile” is not just unjust, but incompatible with reality. It’s in a sense disturbing that many people cannot distinguish a child and an adult (in a sexual sense) without looking at their birth certificate. Evolution gave us a whole suite of distinguishing visual characteristics to tell the two apart. Can nobody else see them?

  45. Oh I’m sorry, but denouncing Jeremy Forrest is very just indeed. The exact pathological term may be disputed by his apologists, but the principle is self evident.
    ‘Nature’ includes psychological development. That’s why we protect our young. It’s really simple.

  46. Ian B

    Interesting.

    Purely on the last paragraph, and not my expertise at all, but physically I thought there were already more accurate technical descriptions in place, eg ephebophiles, hebephiles, pedophiles, etc?

    Which of course is quite different from the cultural and legal issues focusing on protection, including emotional, and which drive our collective responses as a society.

  47. bloke (not) in spain

    Surely, Ian, the thing weakens their case is, even across Europe, no-one’s capable of formulating a clear age marker. The population adjusted AOC is under 15 with a lower end of 12. The only sensible AOC I’ve heard of is one of the S. American countries – doesn’t regard men as sexually mature until their thirties. From memory, seems entirely justified.

  48. bloke (not) in spain

    If one separates the physical and psychological, ie accepts that they are different, then why are different legal ages any sort of problem?

    Once we focus on psychological and emotional protection, our own collective responses and attitudes as a society come into play, and which will likely vary between different societies?

    30-ish – yep, sounds about right..:)

  49. @b(n)is: The only sensible AOC I’ve heard of is one of the S. American countries – doesn’t regard men as sexually mature until their thirties.

    There’s a North European rule of thumb that young men “work it out” regarding drug use, street violence and crime after they establish a long term relationship or attain ~27 years of age. Most of those formerly inclined to dissolute life conclude that they want something more meaningful. They slip up occasionally.

  50. B(n)IS

    That’s because there isn’t a clear age marker. People mature at different rates. Both physically and mentally. Most cultures traditionally went around the 12 or 13 mark (hence Bar Mitzvah at 13).

    Talking of which, since it seems to be commonly believed that all men are emotionally immature compared to women (Top Gear may be some proof of this), does this make any woman an exploiter of vulnerable men?

    PF,

    Logically there’s only one meaningful categorical distinction in this context, which is between sexually juvenile and mature. After that you can make up as many “philes” as you like (fancy old people? Gerontophile. Etc) but they’re not meaningful in terms of identifying sexual capacity.

    Ironman-

    ‘Nature’ includes psychological development. That’s why we protect our young. It’s really simple.

    Except it isn’t. You just come out with these statements of your certainty, then when I ask for some supporting evidence and logic, you haven’t got any. What objective measure of psychological development are you using? Suppose you had to devise a blind test of human individuals, ages unknown, to ascertain whether it is suitable to allow them to have sex. How would you go about that?

    Is it not the case that the psychological changes necessary for a sexual being occur, like the physical ones, at puberty? If they don’t, why did evolution make such a gross error?

  51. Yes it’s really simple. And it gets even easier when the apparently disinterested are always – and I do mean always – the.most exercised by the ‘injustices’ suffered by e.g. teachers who have run away with and shagged their 15-year-old pupils. And then it gets easier still when those same apparently disinterested men are always – and certainly on this blog I mean always – the first to shout about the injustice of those convicted.of.raping adult women, e.g.Ched Evans. And it is made even easier again when one tries to find an example of them.on his blog or anywhere else’s saying loud and proud “that is disgusting, he’s a rapist”.

    And we come back full circle yet again to Squander Two’s point: Always you. Always first. Always seeing injustice. Always seeing bent cops, corrupted judges, brainwashed juries. Society is wrong; I am right.

    Thank you Squander. ‘Odd’ has served us so well here. I’m finished with this weird thread.

  52. And sadly, without answering any of the points raised or direct questions. All he’s got is his implications of unspecified “interest”. And all without considering that maybe it’s only the dubious cases, difficult issues and potential injustices that get discussed because they’re the ones that generate discussion. Oh well, cheerio Ironman. Just for the record, you’re a bit odd frankly.

  53. IanB @ 1.08pm

    But you aren’t just repeating what the gay lobby says — rather, you are making inferences from its position, and your inferences don’t obey the laws of logic. Non sequitur. Logic fail.

  54. Deep sight. One last time before your bedtime; I wrote:

    “apparently disinterested but so very, very interested. That is both curious and odd.”

    To which you replied:

    “Now, presuming definition 1, please go ahead and explain what “considerations of personal advantage” I am “influenced by”. I’m fascinated to know what they are.”

    Jesus wept.

    As an aside, I’ve spent the afternoon interpreting a ruling from the ECJ and writing a paper indicating that its meaning night have been lost in translation a little; ironic really.

  55. So Much for Subtlety

    Ironman – “So once again in defence of reality and jury trials: Harris, Hall, Clifford, Travis, Glitter all guilty as sin. Jim Davidson not guilty and not charged. Bill Roche, innocent and acquitted when the jury heard the evidence. That’s English Law. That is trial by jury on this country.”

    Titus Oates. Juries may get things right some of the time. Maybe even most of the time. But there is no reason to think that they get it right all of the time.

    Children have been sexually abused. But some of those men are clearly innocent. Harris is probably one of them.

    By the way, I did like your comment on the unrestrained sexuality of the Nigerian male. Hypocrite.

  56. So Much for Subtlety

    Apata’s fragile mental state also forms part of her case. She has previously been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress. She attempted suicide while being kept in prison and facing deportation.

    So Nigeria whipped four men for Gay sex? Frankly I don’t care. I don’t think we should accept even one under any circumstances. Regardless of what faces them back in Nigeria. Asylum should not be a suicide pact.

    But look at this woman’s acting out. It certainly looks like someone who wants to stay, not someone who genuinely fears for her life. So she submitted photos of her snogging another girl? She should be grateful that we are not like the Turkish Army. Which used to demand photos and/or video of someone engaging in passive anal intercourse before they would allow them exemption from national service on the grounds of homosexuality.

    Regardless of my lack of compassion and making the Baby Jesus cry, the Gay lobby asked for this. If being Gay is a reason for staying, then the Courts need to assess the degree of Gayness involved. They also need to adjudicate on what being Gay means. All claims have to be tested in Court. We can’t simply rely on someone’s word.

  57. Revealing of what, exactly
    You describe your antagonist as “bizarre” on the basis of your misunderstanding of his unambiguous comment. Then when your mistake is pointed out to you, instead of backing down you blame him for not having adapted his writing to the limitations of your vocabulary. What do you think that reveals?

  58. I think Ironman is one of those individuals who will remain smugly convinced of his superiority over us suspicious mere mortals….

    …right up until the time he (or someone close to him) is falsely accused.

    The good news is that these individuals often then become even more vociferous against the injustice than those of us who can see the potential for it without being personally involved.

  59. You describe your antagonist as “bizarre” on the basis of your misunderstanding of his unambiguous comment. Then when your mistake is pointed out to you, instead of backing down you blame him for not having adapted his writing to the limitations of your vocabulary. What do you think that reveals?

    I think it reveals that Ironman needs to come out and say whatever he’s saying instead of playing Call My Bluff. I have never claimed to be uninterested (definiton 2 which I and many others would use in normal conversation). If he meant definition 1, he needs to clarify what he thinks my interest in this is. If I have said something that somebody else has misunderstood (commonplace on the internet) I clarify it for them, rather than snarking about their inferior capacity in English language.

    I have answered his assertion as I understood it. I have already shown that the statement was ambiguous by posting a dictionary definition- which Ironman advised me to check. I have explained at some length why I am particularly interested in the subject. If this is insufficient, Ironman (or you, since you apparently know his mind) could just come forward and state clearly whatever implication you are implying.

    Why not do so? You seem to think my genuine misunderstanding is “revealing”. Revealing of what, exactly?

    Come on. Out with it.

  60. “If he meant Definition 1”

    If?
    This plain English stuff really stumps you doesn’t it.

    PaulB, time for us to get back to disagreeing profoundly with intelligent people I think.

  61. You made an ambiguous statement, or assertion, or whatever. It was therefore not plain English. You said look in a dictionary, so I did, and showed that the statement has more than one interpretation. Since I am interested in this subject, as I have explained, that is why I write about it. But definition 1 does not apply since I do not have ” considerations of personal advantage”. Why would I assume the definition that does not apply to me?

    Now, whatever you were trying to say, please say it, this time in plain English. You seem to have trouble writing it and, I am increasingly wondering why you are refusing to clarify the ambiguous statement you made.

  62. The statement was not ambiguous. In understanding language, context matters. If a tennis umpire says “play a let” the players don’t insist that he clarify whether he means that they should act out a rental agreement.

    Perhaps your conviction that almost everybody but you is guilty of muddled thinking is based on your failure to understand what they’re saying.

  63. Well then, apparently we have reached the end of this road, since I have no idea what the sentence was supposed to mean and its author and his new best friend PaulB refuse to clarify, despite repeated requests. A decent person in a discussion who considers themself misunderstood would repeat their point in other terms. Somebody who has woefully lost an argument, but finds a point of grammar to argue about instead is not, on the other hand, an uncommon form of bad behaviour on the internet.

    So, I think we must leave it there. Perhaps Ironman will come to understand the merit of making himself clearly understood in future, but I doubt it.

  64. PaulB

    I can understand you and you can understand me. So that seems to be all bases covered in this discussion.

    Until next time.

  65. Bloke in Costa Rica

    For what it’s worth, uninterested and disinterested mean two different things even though they are commonly used catachrestically for one another. I am uninterested in who wins the F.A. Cup Final because I simply do not give even the teeniest tiniest little shit about football or sport in general. Were I refereeing said Cup Final, it would be my duty to be disinterested in the outcome. So the two words encode different semantic concepts which is why they are different words. As Steven Pinker has pointed out, this is important because if the distinction is elided for long enough we become unable to draw it. He also points out, however, that the dis/un distinction we have today is the exact reverse of what it was a couple of hundred years ago. So there’s something to keep both the prescriptivists and the descriptivists happy.

    Also for what it’s worth, I’m sympathetic to both camps in the historical sexual abuse/Moslem grooming gangs/underage bonking argument. Given the nature of some of the allegations, genuinely condign justice would entail leaving no stone unturned in ensuring any investigation or prosecution was completely above board and that there genuinely was a case to answer, followed by, should the allegations prove founded, nailing the perpetrators’ bollocks to the wall.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *