US Politics

Mark B said:
Yes, it is ICC overreach. It created its own rules and then changes them as it desires in attempts to include other nations. This why almost half the world's population is not a part of the ICC.

People who feel the need to tell others that they are a decent person are rarely ever decent people. That you are supportive of someone who(along with his brother) likes to sexually harass ad assault women and actively supports Groomer gangs (you can even read their helpful guideline in how to not to attract groomer gangs). So you can tell me that you are the side of that type of decency, but I find that type of behavior disgusting. There are very few purely good people in the world, and the ICC doesn't have any. Either does the Israeli government and Hamas surely doesn't. While you may be wishing for organizations like the ICC to live up to a high moral standard, they simply don't.

Of course it has to do with the mid-terms, it won't really matter as the Republicans have some weak Senate nominees and that is what it will come down to. If those races are close (Democrat Plus 3 and under) then you'll likely see the Republican pull it out but if they are plus 5, the Democrat is likely winning. Plus 4 is a toss up.

Tracking weapons and out of Iran is not really hard to do because they only have so many ports (air an sea) that they can get in at and the Israelis have a world class ground intelligence to cover the sea and the US tracks everything going in and out by air. Post blast analysis has also shown primarily Iranian with a few Chinese parts. The real issue for Iran is that they cannot afford anything that Russia sends and Putin is afraid that if he gives Iran weapons that Trump will go nuts and give Ukraine long range missiles and a bunch of other stuff they have been asking for.
Click to expand...
Regarding the first highlighted sentence this is simply wrong. The member states, acting collectively write the rules and provide oversight. If you don't believe those that serve on the Court aren't decent people then there's little hope for you. Some of the most respected legal minds, who have served the pursuit of justice in noble ways, serve the Court.

The second intrigues me. Who on earth are you describing? I have absolutely no idea. That I would ever support anyone who fitted such a description is grossly offensive so please identify who you are suggesting deserves it and I will address the slur directly. Or just withdraw it.

As to the rest, support comes in many guises. Not all of it hard weaponry, especially these days. Cyber warfare and deliberate misinformation has been successfully perpetrated by Russia for many years. Trump benefitting from it himself on several occasions. Iran has spread some highly polished propaganda. Do you seriously think they are capable of producing that themselves?
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Regarding the first highlighted sentence this is simply wrong. The member states, acting collectively write the rules and provide oversight. If you don't believe those that serve on the Court aren't decent people then there's little hope for you. Some of the most respected legal minds, who have served the pursuit of justice in noble ways, serve the Court.

The second intrigues me. Who on earth are you describing? I have absolutely no idea. That I would ever support anyone who fitted such a description is grossly offensive so please identify who you are suggesting deserves it and I will address the slur directly. Or just withdraw it.

As to the rest, support comes in many guises. Not all of it hard weaponry, especially these days. Cyber warfare and deliberate misinformation has been successfully perpetrated by Russia for many years. Trump benefitting from it himself on several occasions. Iran has spread some highly polished propaganda. Do you seriously think they are capable of producing that themselves?
Click to expand...
You are missing the boat completely on this, and you are inadvertently agreeing with me because the issue isn't member states, the issue is the ICC trying to claim a right over non member states. If nations signed up for the ICC then rock on, but they have no right to give themselves authority over other nations simply because they decided to. There are some in the ICC who are doing great work, but their actions get lumped together with the anti-Israel portions as a collective organization.

It was Karim Khan who was the lead prosecutor over the Israel case who was fired for sexually harassing women. His brother was a British politician who victimed shamed victims of groomer gangs saying that they were encouraging their rapists.

Iran is producing that social media content itself. The NSA can even give the IP addresses where they are coming from. Most cyber security professionals can trace them as well since they leave the metadata in their posts. The majority come from inside Iran as well as some in Pakistan, Europe and even the US. The Russian bot farms have repeated some of it but the Pakistani and especially Chinese have been the ones really repeating them. The Russians just don't care much about Iran because they are wary of enabling Islamic extremism in Chechnya again.
 
Mark B said:
You are missing the boat completely on this, and you are inadvertently agreeing with me because the issue isn't member states, the issue is the ICC trying to claim a right over non member states. If nations signed up for the ICC then rock on, but they have no right to give themselves authority over other nations simply because they decided to. There are some in the ICC who are doing great work, but their actions get lumped together with the anti-Israel portions as a collective organization.

It was Karim Khan who was the lead prosecutor over the Israel case who was fired for sexually harassing women. His brother was a British politician who victimed shamed victims of groomer gangs saying that they were encouraging their rapists.

Iran is producing that social media content itself. The NSA can even give the IP addresses where they are coming from. Most cyber security professionals can trace them as well since they leave the metadata in their posts. The majority come from inside Iran as well as some in Pakistan, Europe and even the US. The Russian bot farms have repeated some of it but the Pakistani and especially Chinese have been the ones really repeating them. The Russians just don't care much about Iran because they are wary of enabling Islamic extremism in Chechnya again.
Click to expand...
You are the one missing the point! The ICC do nothing themselves. They are acting upon the instructions of their members. Those members having decided to shine a light on anyone, whether a member of not, who, in their judgement, commits crimes. That in no way assumes any authority over anyone. It's up to non member countries to decide to either prosecute those accused themselves or submit them to the processes of the ICC if an arrest warrant is issued. Israel didn't do either. The Philippines chose the ICC. That both decisions were entirely political doesn't impact the benefits of each case being brought before the Court of public opinion.

I am referring to the ICC as an organisation, and not any individual who works for it. No individual speaks for the Court or it's members. No individual decides to bring a case. They merely administer decisions. They don't make them. I have never heard of Karim Khan, let alone his brother, so am unable to comment on your allegations directed at them. I can though totally refute any nonsensical suggestion that me defending the actions of the ICC means I am also defending those who support grooming gangs. I am not, nor would I ever do such a thing. Please withdraw.

If you seriously believe that the Russian bot farms aren't capable of producing material which has been carefully disguised to appear to come from Iran then you, like so many others, are being duped by them. They are interfering in events all over the world, and have done for many years. Just read today's news for confirmation.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
You are the one missing the point! The ICC do nothing themselves. They are acting upon the instructions of their members. Those members having decided to shine a light on anyone, whether a member of not, who, in their judgement, commits crimes. That in no way assumes any authority over anyone. It's up to non member countries to decide to either prosecute those accused themselves or submit them to the processes of the ICC if an arrest warrant is issued. Israel didn't do either. The Philippines chose the ICC. That both decisions were entirely political doesn't impact the benefits of each case being brought before the Court of public opinion.

I am referring to the ICC as an organisation, and not any individual who works for it. No individual speaks for the Court or it's members. No individual decides to bring a case. They merely administer decisions. They don't make them. I have never heard of Karim Khan, let alone his brother, so am unable to comment on your allegations directed at them. I can though totally refute any nonsensical suggestion that me defending the actions of the ICC means I am also defending those who support grooming gangs. I am not, nor would I ever do such a thing. Please withdraw.

If you seriously believe that the Russian bot farms aren't capable of producing material which has been carefully disguised to appear to come from Iran then you, like so many others, are being duped by them. They are interfering in events all over the world, and have done for many years. Just read today's news for confirmation.
Click to expand...
Except the ICC is trying to prosecute people from non-member states who have openly said that they are not interested in following the ICC. That is the issue that I have repeatedly tried to explain to you. The ICC going after non-member states citizens when the state is not in agreement is overreach and beyond the original mandate.

The ICC is what the people who run it are. This is true of all organizations, which is why entire organizations get the stain when its members do something wrong. If someone shits in my 10,000 gallon pool, it doesn't make a difference that 99.99% of the pool is fine, it is still a shitty pool.

The entire issue between you and I are coming at this from different knowledge bases. I've been studying the ICC for years and have even talked to a couple of people who worked for them about their experiences. That you don't know the people involved, what the context of the debate is and the background involved in how the ICC has got to this point now leads to extensive confusion as we are writing right past each other. Do I believe you support people like Khan and his brother as individuals? No, but the ICC does. My belief is that the ICC is full of potential but has been overly influenced by Islamic ideology, similar to how the UN General Assembly has been, and it has pushed it into areas that are beyond its mandate and authorities.

Of course the Russian bot farms are capable, but what I'm telling you is that those farms primarily focus on Russia, Ukraine, Europe and the US content right now. Russians don't care about Iran because of its Islamic extremism and that the majority of what gets to twitter and social media is actually coming from Iran, Pakistan and China, not Russia.

To recap:
- ICC has a mandate. I'm saying they have overreached by going after nations who have not signed and have no interest.
- Karim Khan (and his brother Imran Khan): We both agree that they are bad people.
- ICC: We think many people who work there are good people; but I think the bad ones stain the organization.
- Russian Bot Farms. We both agree they exist. I'm saying most Iranian propaganda isn't coming from there.
 
Mark B said:
It's real. The guy has an amazing talent to make people both laugh and be ashamed at the same time.

The funniest part for me is that Indian social media is the one spreading it globally with NDTV and Times of India both spamming the internet with it.
Click to expand...
Mark you seem to be on top of this, who is bossing thr democrats at a federal level?
 
Another biased report by the BBC. Bias by omission, their favourite tactic.

www.bbc.co.uk

Immigration officials search Congresswoman Ilhan Omar home

Omar was first elected to Congress in 2018, and is an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

No mention of the major fraud in Minnesota involving member of the Somali community or the connections to Omar. No mention of the investigations into her personnel finances and accusations of fraud.

I am not saying she is guilty but a balanced report would at least mention that she is under the spotlight. At the very least this massive federal fraud happened on her watch so that has to raise questions.

Instead the tone of the report is that she is being persecuted. And Jeffrey Archer was unfairly picked on as well 😕
 
chris123 said:
Mark you seem to be on top of this, who is bossing thr democrats at a federal level?
Click to expand...
As dumb as this is going to sound, they don't have anyone at this point. The DNC pickups next moonth are primarily going to be in places where the Republicans ran a moron (Texas/Michigan) or a geriatric (Alaska/Maine). Add in Trump's ability to piss everyone off and this is grass roots driving it as it is drastically more anti-Trump then it is really pro Democrats.

As far as 2028 goes, I think we'll start seeing some Democrat candidates picking up speed next year. As far as that goes, the two quieter names I would be looking at for the Democrats are Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff. I think Newsom has too much baggage, Americans won't vote for a fat person so Pritzker is out, and AOC is going after Chuch Schumer's Senate seat. Buttigieg being gay ensures that Black Democrats won't vote for him in the primary, same with Shapriro being too Jewish to win in the primary.
 
Mark B said:
Except the ICC is trying to prosecute people from non-member states who have openly said that they are not interested in following the ICC. That is the issue that I have repeatedly tried to explain to you. The ICC going after non-member states citizens when the state is not in agreement is overreach and beyond the original mandate.

The ICC is what the people who run it are. This is true of all organizations, which is why entire organizations get the stain when its members do something wrong. If someone shits in my 10,000 gallon pool, it doesn't make a difference that 99.99% of the pool is fine, it is still a shitty pool.

The entire issue between you and I are coming at this from different knowledge bases. I've been studying the ICC for years and have even talked to a couple of people who worked for them about their experiences. That you don't know the people involved, what the context of the debate is and the background involved in how the ICC has got to this point now leads to extensive confusion as we are writing right past each other. Do I believe you support people like Khan and his brother as individuals? No, but the ICC does. My belief is that the ICC is full of potential but has been overly influenced by Islamic ideology, similar to how the UN General Assembly has been, and it has pushed it into areas that are beyond its mandate and authorities.

Of course the Russian bot farms are capable, but what I'm telling you is that those farms primarily focus on Russia, Ukraine, Europe and the US content right now. Russians don't care about Iran because of its Islamic extremism and that the majority of what gets to twitter and social media is actually coming from Iran, Pakistan and China, not Russia.

To recap:
- ICC has a mandate. I'm saying they have overreached by going after nations who have not signed and have no interest.
- Karim Khan (and his brother Imran Khan): We both agree that they are bad people.
- ICC: We think many people who work there are good people; but I think the bad ones stain the organization.
- Russian Bot Farms. We both agree they exist. I'm saying most Iranian propaganda isn't coming from there.
Click to expand...
You once again are either missing the point completely or deciding to ignore it.

This has nothing whatever to do with whether any state has accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC or not. Those who decide not to open themselves to the suspicion that they have something to hide. Which, of itself, is a strong reason to shine light onto them and make public their conclusions. Anyone who feels the accusations are invalid have an easy remedy. Answer the charges, present the defence, get cleared.,

That many won’t is not a reason to ignore them and not issue charges. The whole point of doing that is to publicise the suspicions, which in turn should lesson the crimes as people will fear exposure. Reducing crime is the ultimate goal. I have no interest in the individual employees of the Court. We don’t agree they are bad people. I have no opinion on those I don’t know. If what you say about the guy you mention is in anyway true he would no longer work there, so if he does my instinct is you are misrepresenting his views. Something I am very familiar with from the activities of some on here.

If the Imran Khan you mention is the ex cricketer then I do have some knowledge. All of it positive.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
You once again are either missing the point completely or deciding to ignore it.

This has nothing whatever to do with whether any state has accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC or not. Those who decide not to open themselves to the suspicion that they have something to hide. Which, of itself, is a strong reason to shine light onto them and make public their conclusions. Anyone who feels the accusations are invalid have an easy remedy. Answer the charges, present the defence, get cleared.,
That many won’t is not a reason to ignore them and not issue charges. The whole point of doing that is to publicise the suspicions, which in turn should lesson the crimes as people will fear exposure. Reducing crime is the ultimate goal. I have no interest in the individual employees of the Court. We don’t agree they are bad people. I have no opinion on those I don’t know. If what you say about the guy you mention is in anyway true he would no longer work there, so if he does my instinct is you are misrepresenting his views. Something I am very familiar with from the activities of some on here.

If the Imran Khan you mention is the ex cricketer then I do have some knowledge. All of it positive.
Click to expand...
So you are in favor of ICC overreach beyond its mandate. See, that wasn't that hard to admit. The ICC has no authority to take the authority over nations that didn't want to join. So there is zero reason to present an argument to an entity that has granted itself authority in judicial cases. But your way seems to be the way the ICC wants to play it and now the US is responding through its legal means so we'll see what happens to the ICC.

He is a bad person, which is why he was fired.

Different Imran Khan. The one you are thinking about is currently serving serving a 17 year prison sentence for taking bribes and money from a Trust (his real crime being in the opposition party in Pakistan). The other Imran Khan was a MP from Wakefield who only got 18 months for sexually assault a 15 year old boy. L

I'm not misrepresenting you, I'm mocking you, two totally different things. You believe an organization by simply existing and giving itself authority should have oversight of anyone they want to. I think that is insane. See, no misrepresentation involved.
 
Mark B said:
So you are in favor of ICC overreach beyond its mandate. See, that wasn't that hard to admit. The ICC has no authority to take the authority over nations that didn't want to join. So there is zero reason to present an argument to an entity that has granted itself authority in judicial cases. But your way seems to be the way the ICC wants to play it and now the US is responding through its legal means so we'll see what happens to the ICC.

He is a bad person, which is why he was fired.

Different Imran Khan. The one you are thinking about is currently serving serving a 17 year prison sentence for taking bribes and money from a Trust (his real crime being in the opposition party in Pakistan). The other Imran Khan was a MP from Wakefield who only got 18 months for sexually assault a 15 year old boy. L

I'm not misrepresenting you, I'm mocking you, two totally different things. You believe an organization by simply existing and giving itself authority should have oversight of anyone they want to. I think that is insane. See, no misrepresentation involved.
Click to expand...
It’s you claiming overreach. Not me! You are merely parroting the attitudes of people like Netanyahu and Trump. The ICC does not “give itself authority”. The ICC possesses authority to investigate and prosecute people from non member states. They have the mandate to do so under the Rome Statute.

1. The Crime is Committed on the Territory of a Member State.

Under Article 12 of the Rome Statute, the ICC has jurisdiction if the core crime (such as war crimes or genocide) was committed on the geographic territory of a country that is an ICC member.

  • Example: If a soldier or leader from a non-member state (e.g., the United States or Russia) is accused of committing war crimes inside a member state (e.g., Afghanistan or Ukraine), the ICC can legally investigate and prosecute that individual. Under international law, countries have the right to prosecute crimes committed inside their borders, and by joining the ICC, they delegate that authority to the international court.

2. The United Nations Security Council Refers the Situation

Under Article 13(b), the UN Security Council (UNSC) can formally refer a situation anywhere in the world to the ICC prosecutor.
  • Because all UN member states are bound by the UN Charter, a Security Council referral bypasses the requirement for ICC membership.

3. The Non-Member State Submits an Ad Hoc Declaration

A non-member country can choose to voluntarily accept the ICC’s jurisdiction for a specific period or event without fully joining the court.

  • Example: Ukraine is not a full state party to the Rome Statute but submitted two ad hoc declarations accepting ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed on its territory, which allowed the ICC to initiate investigations there.
Just in case you are unaware Palestine is a full member of the ICC.

Now I expect you, like Netanyahu and Trump, don’t have much time for the UN either and also don’t recognise Palestine as a state. That though doesn’t mean that other countries can and have done so and have delegated authority to the ICC.

It’s NOT overreach. It’s a very important way of holding the powerful to account. Hopefully, in time, in an actual Court room but until then in the court of public opinion. Nothing the least insane involved in seeking to expose crimes to public view. It’s how you change things without using force.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
It’s you claiming overreach. Not me! You are merely parroting the attitudes of people like Netanyahu and Trump. The ICC does not “give itself authority”. The ICC possesses authority to investigate and prosecute people from non member states. They have the mandate to do so under the Rome Statute.

1. The Crime is Committed on the Territory of a Member State.

Under Article 12 of the Rome Statute, the ICC has jurisdiction if the core crime (such as war crimes or genocide) was committed on the geographic territory of a country that is an ICC member.

  • Example: If a soldier or leader from a non-member state (e.g., the United States or Russia) is accused of committing war crimes inside a member state (e.g., Afghanistan or Ukraine), the ICC can legally investigate and prosecute that individual. Under international law, countries have the right to prosecute crimes committed inside their borders, and by joining the ICC, they delegate that authority to the international court.

2. The United Nations Security Council Refers the Situation

Under Article 13(b), the UN Security Council (UNSC) can formally refer a situation anywhere in the world to the ICC prosecutor.
  • Because all UN member states are bound by the UN Charter, a Security Council referral bypasses the requirement for ICC membership.

3. The Non-Member State Submits an Ad Hoc Declaration

A non-member country can choose to voluntarily accept the ICC’s jurisdiction for a specific period or event without fully joining the court.

  • Example: Ukraine is not a full state party to the Rome Statute but submitted two ad hoc declarations accepting ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed on its territory, which allowed the ICC to initiate investigations there.
Just in case you are unaware Palestine is a full member of the ICC.

Now I expect you, like Netanyahu and Trump, don’t have much time for the UN either and also don’t recognise Palestine as a state. That though doesn’t mean that other countries can and have done so and have delegated authority to the ICC.

It’s NOT overreach. It’s a very important way of holding the powerful to account. Hopefully, in time, in an actual Court room but until then in the court of public opinion. Nothing the least insane involved in seeking to expose crimes to public view. It’s how you change things without using force.
Click to expand...

Palestine isn’t a real state under the Rome Statute’s own rules. 🤣
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
It’s you claiming overreach. Not me! You are merely parroting the attitudes of people like Netanyahu and Trump. The ICC does not “give itself authority”. The ICC possesses authority to investigate and prosecute people from non member states. They have the mandate to do so under the Rome Statute.

1. The Crime is Committed on the Territory of a Member State.

Under Article 12 of the Rome Statute, the ICC has jurisdiction if the core crime (such as war crimes or genocide) was committed on the geographic territory of a country that is an ICC member.

  • Example: If a soldier or leader from a non-member state (e.g., the United States or Russia) is accused of committing war crimes inside a member state (e.g., Afghanistan or Ukraine), the ICC can legally investigate and prosecute that individual. Under international law, countries have the right to prosecute crimes committed inside their borders, and by joining the ICC, they delegate that authority to the international court.

2. The United Nations Security Council Refers the Situation

Under Article 13(b), the UN Security Council (UNSC) can formally refer a situation anywhere in the world to the ICC prosecutor.
  • Because all UN member states are bound by the UN Charter, a Security Council referral bypasses the requirement for ICC membership.

3. The Non-Member State Submits an Ad Hoc Declaration

A non-member country can choose to voluntarily accept the ICC’s jurisdiction for a specific period or event without fully joining the court.

  • Example: Ukraine is not a full state party to the Rome Statute but submitted two ad hoc declarations accepting ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed on its territory, which allowed the ICC to initiate investigations there.
Just in case you are unaware Palestine is a full member of the ICC.

Now I expect you, like Netanyahu and Trump, don’t have much time for the UN either and also don’t recognise Palestine as a state. That though doesn’t mean that other countries can and have done so and have delegated authority to the ICC.

It’s NOT overreach. It’s a very important way of holding the powerful to account. Hopefully, in time, in an actual Court room but until then in the court of public opinion. Nothing the least insane involved in seeking to expose crimes to public view. It’s how you change things without using force.
Click to expand...
I think the US are a bit late with their UN membership dues, as in billons.
 
Mark B said:
Except the ICC is trying to prosecute people from non-member states who have openly said that they are not interested in following the ICC. That is the issue that I have repeatedly tried to explain to you. The ICC going after non-member states citizens when the state is not in agreement is overreach and beyond the original mandate.

The ICC is what the people who run it are. This is true of all organizations, which is why entire organizations get the stain when its members do something wrong. If someone shits in my 10,000 gallon pool, it doesn't make a difference that 99.99% of the pool is fine, it is still a shitty pool.

The entire issue between you and I are coming at this from different knowledge bases. I've been studying the ICC for years and have even talked to a couple of people who worked for them about their experiences. That you don't know the people involved, what the context of the debate is and the background involved in how the ICC has got to this point now leads to extensive confusion as we are writing right past each other. Do I believe you support people like Khan and his brother as individuals? No, but the ICC does. My belief is that the ICC is full of potential but has been overly influenced by Islamic ideology, similar to how the UN General Assembly has been, and it has pushed it into areas that are beyond its mandate and authorities.

Of course the Russian bot farms are capable, but what I'm telling you is that those farms primarily focus on Russia, Ukraine, Europe and the US content right now. Russians don't care about Iran because of its Islamic extremism and that the majority of what gets to twitter and social media is actually coming from Iran, Pakistan and China, not Russia.

To recap:
- ICC has a mandate. I'm saying they have overreached by going after nations who have not signed and have no interest.
- Karim Khan (and his brother Imran Khan): We both agree that they are bad people.
- ICC: We think many people who work there are good people; but I think the bad ones stain the organization.
- Russian Bot Farms. We both agree they exist. I'm saying most Iranian propaganda isn't coming from there.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good Mark but you've got to realise that WE is a member of a bowls club in Truro. This (and how's this for irony!?) Trumps any knowledge you may think you have on any matter.
 
mezzer said:
That's all well and good Mark but you've got to realise that WE is a member of a bowls club in Truro. This (and how's this for irony!?) Trumps any knowledge you may think you have on any matter.
Click to expand...
My pastimes have no influence on my ability to understand world affairs. In fact my colleagues who I bowl with are much better informed that almost all who post here. Staying fit and active helps the brain too! Certainly better than those who live in the dark corners of the internet.
 
eaglesdare said:
Palestine isn’t a real state under the Rome Statute’s own rules. 🤣
Click to expand...
More prejudice based on reading myopic biased opinions rather than actual facts!

The International Criminal Court (ICC) Pre-Trial Chamber ruled that Palestine is a State Party to the Rome Statute, and its jurisdiction covers the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.

Legal Status and the Rome Statute.

  • Accession: Palestine deposited its instrument of accession to the Rome Statute on January 2, 2015, and the statute officially entered into force for Palestine on April 1, 2015, making it the 123rd State Party.
  • Pre-Trial Chamber Ruling: On February 6, 2021, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber confirmed in a majority ruling that the Court's territorial jurisdiction extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 (Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem).
  • Depositary Role: Under the Rome Statute, entities can become a State Party by depositing an instrument of accession or ratification with the United Nations Secretary-General, a process Palestine completed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top