Anything Political

Recommended Posts

You’re going to come back DJ but are you really serious that the BBC are bias to the Tory government. Really. 
You name some well known BBC presenters who are Tory supporters but there are many many with allegiance to the left.
Secondly and Stavertongirl made this point, Lineker is such a high profile BBC presenter his views on political matters or anything else for that matter will not be seen as private views. The BBC backing down is a victory for the woke left. Shameful. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Don't really like ''Linekar'' seems a bit up his sen'' but i don't know what all the fuss is about..........Can't see how anything was aimed at the ''Jews'' probs with Germany.........We have floods..

Firstly Letsav, the gold sale may or may not have been unwise. Expert opinion seems divided, but eitherway it had little to no long term impact. Other than that Labour were doing pretty well unti

I'm not here to defend Matt Hancock, but I'm once again amazed by the arrogance and poisonous rhetoric of Isabel Oakshott. The woman masquerades as a 'journalist' and couches her arguments in a sort o

5 hours ago, Stuart.C said:

If I was the person at the Beeb, or any other organisation that might have every man (person) cat or dog ready to jump on them for things said by people with an influence, who are employed by the Beeb whether it be direct or under contract, I would have had concerns over the reference to Germany in the 30's not the basic criticism of U.K Gov.


I suspect Gary Lineker didn't think the comment through as it could be interpreted as suggesting that U.K Gov would be planning to carry out exterminations in the future.


I suspect no one else in a similar position criticising U.K Gov has made a similar comparison.

I disagree with your assessment of Linekers comment. It seems as though you have not heard the hysterical inflammatory language used by Braverman to describe migrants, in an attempt to not only divert from Govt. failures in all areas of policy and governance, including their 14 year failure to get a grip of the asylum system, but also a very distasteful attempt to vilify and scapegoat Migrants as well as deliberately whipping up fear and hatred. In my view, Lineker's description of Braverman's language was spot in. He did not mention Nazis or the holocaust, but he correctly described the exaggerated and inflammatory language used by Braverman, who in my view is unfit to hold office, because she seems incapable of stopping herself from being hateful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Engineer said:

Just looked at the BBC News home page.  Apparently the most important topic in the world right now is that a former top-flight footballer turned freelance pundit is to 'return to air' on the Beeb after resolving an issue about some comments he made on social media that didn't fit with their guidelines on conduct.

Over on ITV news, the main story is about some 'showbiz' awards in America.

Meanwhile, a war rages on in the Ukraine, there is unrest in Greece after a train crash that killed dozens of people and a large tech bank in Silicon Valley has gone bust.

I 've been watching the BBC News channel for a couple of hours now. Coverage so far has included the Lineker row, the Oscars, Farming , Doctor's strike, North Korea, Sunak in San Diego, Silicon Valley Bank, Ukraine, UK Conservation, Arab Oil profits, etc, etc.

I can't comment on ITV .

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, letsavagoo said:

You’re going to come back DJ but are you really serious that the BBC are bias to the Tory government. Really. 
You name some well known BBC presenters who are Tory supporters but there are many many with allegiance to the left.
Secondly and Stavertongirl made this point, Lineker is such a high profile BBC presenter his views on political matters or anything else for that matter will not be seen as private views. The BBC backing down is a victory for the woke left. Shameful. 

You bet I'm going to come back!

There are very few left leaning POLITICAL journalists in the BBC. Please check your facts.

Also please compare the total lack of censure of Neill, Kuenssberg, Bruce, et.  al. after they have used their positions as supposed impartial commentators to push their own agenda whilst broadcasting on political matters... with the IMMEDIATE suspension of Lineker after a PRIVATE tweet, clearly not representing the BBC and before any form of investigation.

The BBC has also admitted that the alleged guidelines have 'grey areas', whichbis not Lineker's fault.

Finally, what in God's name is 'the woke left'? Woke is a century old term which originated in the American civil rights movement. It simply means 'Alert to injustice' and I am very disturbed that you have joined with Braverman and many on the far right in deliberately  misusing the term 'Woke' in a pejorative  sense in an effort to discredit legitimate protest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the true meaning of 'woke'.


I don't know what you mean by the 'woke left'.

But it's clear you are using the term pejoratively so please tell me who the 'woke left' are, what 'woke left' means and why a victory for them  would be shameful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask what does “woke” mean. Hear it bandied about but don’t have an idea what it means. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In modern parlance it describes hypocritical close-minded people who are are unable to accept other people’s criticism or different perspective. Initially it was used to describe people who became more aware of social injustice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Stavertongirl said:

Can I ask what does “woke” mean. Hear it bandied about but don’t have an idea what it means. 

 As I said above. 'Woke' means 'Alert to injustice'.

Any other meaning is a recent attempt by certain elements on the political right to misrepresent, belittle or ridicule the 'woke'..jn an attempt to undermine rightful protest  campaigning etc.

This pejorative use of 'woke', seems to have emerged since Trump divided America, Black Lives Matter and other group pushed back etc.

The UK right, including far right groups such as the EDL and Braverman, who as a minister should know better, have also adopted their take on the Term. Woke is now used by some, in a similar manner to 'Snowflake' and cries of 'Political correctness gone mad', to try to discredit genuine concerns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, philmayfield said:

In modern parlance it describes hypocritical close-minded people who are are unable to accept other people’s criticism or different perspective. Initially it was used to describe people who became more aware of social injustice.

Phil. Your first sentence assumes that 'Modern Times' commenced during Trump's presidency, as well as incorrectly defining even the pejorative sense of 'woke'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernesto Elliot, originally from Jamaica, was due to deported back to his country of origin in December 2020, but a series of challenges stopped the flight. A number of high-profile celebrities and politicians supported the campaign to stop the deportation flight, including supermodel Naomi Campbell, actress Thandiwe Newton and historian David Olusoga.

He wasn’t deported and subsequently knifed someone to death.

Woke left.

Link to post
Share on other sites


I'll be back in the morning.

Link to post
Share on other sites



Point 1. The ONLY person responsible for Ernesto Elliot killing someone with a knife, is Ernesto Elliot. He made the decision to fight and he made the decision to use a knife.


Point 2. Whatever may have motivated some people to campaign against Elliot's deportation, those people were not the ones who decided to remove him from the deportation flight.


Point 3. If ,as it seems, Elliot was such a dangerous criminal... Who let him into this country and when?


Point 4. If Elliot was such a dangerous known criminal, why, after being removed from the deportation flight, was he seemingly released by the 'Authorities'?


So yes, something clearly went wrong with 'the system', but to leap from that inescapable fact, to trying to conflate a few people campaigning for him into some notion of 'The Woke Left', is patent nonsense.  Clearly, a lot of things went wrong here, but the basic facts are these:


UK Govt. failed to deport a criminal, then failed to supervise him, such that he was able to go on and kill. That's it.


It's also clear that the bulk of the hysteria surrounding the Elliot case was stoked by the Daily Mail and the Sun.  No surprise there, since neither is noted for either balanced, or factual reporting. The whole tenor or their hyped up reporting of the case is calculated to promote racist, xenophobic sentiments,


But, much more, it is a clear attempt to shift the blame for failure of Govt., and the Legal System, onto a few individuals, who were doubtless well meaning, but either misjudged, or were misinformed about the risk Elliot posed.


Furthermore, the Sun and Mail, go on to promote the MYTH of the 'Woke Left', as if it A. actually exists, and B., represents some sort of conspiracy. There is ZERO evidence for either.


Now, I invite you to read this rubbish from the Sun, and I ask you, to ask yourself, what this article is actually about? Here's a is NOT about Ernesto Elliot. Here's another clue.. It IS about promoting the FALSE NARRATIVE that some nefarious force on the British Political Left, is trying to tar the RIGHT with accusations of extremism.  THAT, is how lunatic the British print media has become, and millions suck up this tripe on a daily basis.

This article is just a chaotic jumble of half truths, innuendo and confused 'thinking', simply designed to push all the usual racist-xenophobic-'reds under the bed' etc. buttons, to get Mr and Mrs Gammon steaming and frothing with indignation. the deliberate mistake... The article opens with an assertion that the problem with Britain today is that nobody is required to take responsibility for anything, ..and then goes on to use a few hundred words of drivel trying to shift responsibility for Elliot's crimes onto ANYBODY, but himself, and those who failed to deport him.


For what it's worth, I have spent a long time searching the internet for information about when Elliot came to the UK, why he was up for deportation etc. I can find virtually nothing.  But I can find whole rafts of drivel like the Sun article above.



Link to post
Share on other sites

And another thing...


As a useful term.. 'Woke' is now dead.


It's original meaning has been so thoroughly corrupted as to no longer work, and the recent ironic-pejorative use of 'Woke' is so poorly understood even by those using it, as to render it useless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He came here in 1983 from Jamaica and then began his criminal activities. He wasn’t let in as a known dangerous man. That took me about 30 seconds to find. Since he’s had a long criminal career including possession of an imitation firearm. 
The government wanted to deport him. He was a dangerous violent man and should have quite rightly been deported. The failure to do so was due to protests from the people I mentioned and allegedly ‘Labour MP’s’ and not the government.
The protesters didn’t physically remove him but that was their focus and aim so share the responsibility.

You are way off the mark to lay the blame with the government whatever your opinion of them. He was actually on the plane when he was taken off and used the human rights act (thanks Mrs Blair) to stay here. No doubt the tax payer footed his legal bill.  Look through the half truths innuendo etc etc and look at the facts.
1. Tried to deport dangerous man.
2. Thwarted following protests.

3. Dangerous man kills. 

You say they were well meaning and misguided. I say woke. 

I absolutely agree that the blame for the killing is entirely his but if he’d been deported he would not have had the opportunity to commit the offence he did.

The authorities likely released him as he was being deported as an ‘undesirable’ maybe following a sentence served and that having been scuttled they could not detain him. 
Racism has nothing to do with this.

I wonder if it was someone murdered that you had known or cared for by Elliott you would feel the same. I wonder if all those who took part in achieving his staying here will share the cost of incarceration.


  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


Shall we continue by establishing what we agree on?


First the only one responsible for the murder, is the murderer, Elliot. Agreed.


Second. If he had been deported, he would not have had the opportunity to kill in the UK. Those are inescapable facts.


So let's move on to who, if anyone, is to blame.


You contend that those who campaigned for his release are to blame, and as far as I can tell, you don't accept that Govt., the Home Office or the UK legal system bears any responsibility.


That is the first point on which we differ. Those people campaigned, as far as you or I know, in 'good faith'. I doubt any of them would have supported him knowing he would go on to kill, but they didn't know that, nobody did.  Maybe also useful to consider that there is a broad background to this in that numerous Carribean migrants who came here legally as part of the 'Windrush Generation', have suffered injustice and wrongful deportation at the hands of the Home Office.


I doubt there's a judge on the planet who would argue that his 'supporters', were to blame for events six weeks later, or whenever, but I'll come back to that general principle later.


I contend that the fault here lies with the chaotic state of our 'Immigration' laws, the whole Home Office fiasco and the Legal System which inevitably gets involved. (I'm using Immigration as a loose term here, so maybe we don't need to argue about that in this context). I think it is entirely reasonable to question the Leadership and competence of the Home Office and the Police in this case. One would like to think that they understand the Law and it's application rather better than a gaggle of supporters, 'Woke' or otherwise.


I'd say the murder can be seen at least partly as a consequence of the failed deportation, but it is a very long way from that, to attaching blame to his 'supporters', especially since he was actually freed by (I presume) Home Office Officials, who were unable to win their case legally.


Still, I doubt we'll agree on the above, so maybe agree to differ.


So now let's re-visit 'Woke'.

As I've said a couple of times now. Those Elliot supporters who you villify, may or may not bear some responsibility for the subsequent death. I don't think so, but even if I did, calling them 'Woke' would not be on my radar.


In my view, the minute you invoke the 'pejorative/ironic' usage of 'Woke', you join in with the Culture War being stoked by the Conservative Right..


That Culture War basically assigns 'Woke', to anyone who disagrees with Tory Right policy, actions and pronouncements. So it not only attempts to ridicule ALL opposition, but it also attempts to establish the FALSE principle that all opposition is somehow morally wrong and that furthermore, all opposition is Woke, and that all opposition is part of some sort of conspiracy.  This, as I've said previously, is patent nonsense. (Have you seen the state of disarray on the political left lately?) BUT, it allows the Conservative Right to argue that ALL opposition is somehow wrong, dangerous, immoral, or whatever suits...


It is only a step from that 'War on Woke', to arguing that 'If you aren't with us, you are against us'.  And that, is how Hitler, Stalin, Putin and numerous others operate(d), and why Lineker Tweeted what he did. But it's also a crude, yet effective tactic for winning votes in spite of an appalling record in Govt.


Trust me, the current Conservative Government is likely 'toast', at the next General Election and so they should be, having spent 14 years breaking Britain, our economy, our public services, our infrastructure, our health service etc.. and demonstrating breathtaking levels of incompetence, sleaze and corruption.


So, they have chosen instead, to invoke a Culture War and the central weapon in their armoury is fear.  So they stoke the 'Woke' myth. and they attach it to fear of Immigration, the facts and numbers of which they routinely exaggerate. Why else, when our economy etc., is in meltdown, do they focus on 'Stop the Boats'..and yet are unable to do so?  Simple.. they don't want to stop the boats, because they are a convenient diversion from all the bigger problems they have created.


Add in Braverman with ludicrous claims that 'Billions will invade us', and of course that will be the fear they will attach to the possibility of a Labour Govt, who, according to them will 'Open the floodgates'.  More nonsense, but effective, especially when re-inforced by the routine hysteria in the DM and Sun.


Those boats could be stopped pretty much overnight, by providing a properly organised system of LEGAL means to apply for Asylum etc.  Such routes have been closed..hence, the boats. Also, if a Legal route is established, it is obvious that anyone who has no claim, can be rejected or deported without Britain needing to break International Law. Win Win.


Finally (for now....:rolleyes:), I said I'd come back to the general principle of blame, unintended consequences etc.


So..suppose I campaigned for the abolition of the Motorway speed limit,  somehow succeeded and then saw a rise in fatal accidents.  Who would be to blame/  Drivers?. Those who agreed to lift the speed limit?  Me?


What about the Senior Police Officers, Commissioners or whatever who have been shown to have routinely failed in their duty to get rid of known Rapist/Misogynistic/Racist Police Officers, including some serial Rapists and the low life who murdered Sarah Everard. 

Does any blame attach to them?

Are they the 'Woke Right?' :wacko:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well let’s face it Col, we’ll never agree. Comparing motorway speed limits etc is a totally different thing and of no relevance in this and I’ll ignore it. 
All I’ll say is that the home office were to deport him as he was dangerous. They were sadly, for the subsequent victim proved right. I’m sure all those who campaigned for his stay regret that now. I will say that the lawyers who stopped his deportation were doubtless funded by the tax payer so the government are funding work against themselves which is a ludicrous situation. As many Tory’s have a legal background I’m sure they’re happy with this. I will also agree that the chance of a Tory victory at the next election is very unlikely. 
Unfortunately we won’t fear any better under a Labour government as history has shown but we won’t agree on that so let’s agree to differ and leave it there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow the Twitter link in this post and hear it from the Tory Chair 's own mouth.


Or maybe this Twitter link.. in which this character admits what I have been saying above. Total cynicism and utterly amoral.



Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Those boats could be stopped pretty much overnight, by providing a properly organised system of LEGAL means to apply for Asylum etc.  Such routes have been closed..hence, the boats. Also, if a Legal route is established, it is obvious that anyone who has no claim, can be rejected or deported without Britain needing to break International Law. Win Win.


What about the Senior Police Officers, Commissioners or whatever who have been shown to have routinely failed in their duty to get rid of known Rapist/Misogynistic/Racist Police Officers, including some serial Rapists and the low life who murdered Sarah Everard. 

Does any blame attach to them?

Are they the 'Woke Right?' :wacko:


I said in my last post I’d leave it there and I will but there are a couple of points that I missed.

1. There is a legal route to asylum in the uk. You can read about it here.
It needs reforming and will be. Many of those coming illegally on the boats would not be allowed here via lawful mean so enter illegally. A proportion are trafficked here to work in unlawful activities by criminal gangs or to pay debts owed to gangs etc. Some are simply undesirable and shouldn’t be here.

2. There is historically a problem with institutional racism and misogyny within the Met. It has roots in the general population, not exclusive to the police and eradication is a slow difficult process. I know that it is now being addressed with vigour in the Met.

If a police officer was a know rapist and was being sacked and there were protests to not sack him then we are comparing similar situations but the comparison in the way you present it with the Elliott case too far removed.
I can see where you were going with it but it didn’t quite hit the spot you intended. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DJ360 said:

It’s not opening Col, so I can’t see it. But……there are plenty of social media posts showing Labour lies and incompetence. Such as Angela Rayner’s presence at ‘beer gate’ and ‘we haven’t got a clue’ as shown in a recent interview with Rachael Reeves. I see absolutely no point in bouncing these to one and other. You can find what you’re looking for if you look for it.

I'm not going to defend the Tory’s as they have show such incompetence it’s astonishing. It’s just that I don’t believe Labour are the utopian answer you believe they are and would be worse in the long run. I’m quite sure we’ll find out at the next election.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Open Britain

Dear Colin,

In our ‘long read’ email last week, we filled you in on our research into the UK’s failure to address illicitly funded political campaigns. Unfortunately, sketchy shell companies and untraceable political donations from Russian oligarchs are only one element of the dark money problem. Think tanks hold increasing sway in Number 10, and many do not reveal their donors. 

Nowhere in the UK symbolises these kinds of organisations more than Tufton Street. The headquarters for hard-right libertarian lobbying groups, Tufton Street discreetly houses a network of different groups that generally oppose public services of all kinds, advocate tax cuts for the rich, and promote austerity. While not all these organisations are physically located on Tufton Street, the name has become a symbol for a particular brand of political lobbying – one that has all but taken over politics today. 

In recent years, high-level think tank “experts” have found their way into increasingly influential positions, from Conservative Party conference to BBC Question Time to the corridors of Number 10. Nothing made this more evident than Kwasi Kwarteng’s ballistic mini-budget, which looked to implement unpopular trickle-down policies dreamt up in Tufton Street boardrooms. As former Johnson advisor, Tim Montgomerie stated with glee after the mini-budget: “Britain is now their laboratory”. 

When was the last time the government listened to the constitutional experts who concluded that PR would improve representation, the electoral experts that said Voter ID would disenfranchise millions or the human rights lawyers that said the UK is violating international law? Clearly, it’s only a certain kind of expert that holds sway. 

This week, we want to get into the think tanks on Tufton Street (and beyond) and the influences they’ve had on the last decade of Conservative rule. In another longer-than-usual email, we will demystify the deep-pocketed and enigmatic think tanks that exert so much power in this country. 

Libertarian Nonsense:

These groups advocate for outdated and deeply unpopular policies which – instead of dealing with the UK’s growing income inequality – generally look to make it worse. They want to slash or eradicate public services, give tax benefits to the nation’s wealthiest, and crush unions. We don’t know who funds most of them, but it’s fair to say it’s probably people and companies with a vested interest in those policies. What we do know is that much of the money comes from hard-right American billionaires and multinational corporations. 

Here’s a brief overview of the most prominent libertarian lobbying groups on Tufton Street:

  • The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) is a libertarian think-tank masquerading as an educational charity. Closely allied to Liz Truss, the group lobbied at least 75 MPs before her leadership victory and practically hand-wrote her “trickle-down” policies. The group does not disclose details of its funding, but a general breakdown reveals the majority comes from large businesses and wealthy individuals – we still have no way of knowing who they are. 
  • The Adam Smith Institute is another libertarian group that claims it seeks to “use free markets to create a richer, freer, happier world”. In reality, they also championed the mini-budget that imploded the UK economy and directly influenced Conservative MPs to advocate for trickle-down policies. Like the IEA, they believe “the privacy of their donors should be protected” and refuse to say who funds them. However, their breakdown also reveals a majority from businesses and wealthy individuals.
  • The Taxpayers’ Alliance has been around for years, claiming to be non-partisan and ostensibly advocating for more responsible use of our taxes. Like the two groups above, it gets a transparency rating of E on openDemocracy’s transparency index. In recent years, they’ve joined the culture wars, going after LGBT organisations like Stonewall and notably having their talking points immediately repeated across the right-wing press.

As we’ll see, these right-wing groups not only hold massive sway in government and advocate for radical trickle-down policies but also hugely influence the debates on Brexit and climate. Most of the organisations we mention in this email are members of the Atlas Network, a group of over 500 such think tanks operating globally and headquartered in the United States. 

Brexit Zealotry: 

How many times in recent years were we told that being a member of the EU called the UK’s sovereignty into question? But did anyone ever ask what effect dark money-funded think tanks controlling government policy was having on our sovereignty? In an incredible twist of irony, these groups worked hard to cement a no-deal Brexit aimed at regaining our sovereignty while actively undermining it by exerting influence over the nation’s future. 

The Tufton Street lobbying groups that pushed a hard Brexit: 

  • The Institute for Free Trade (IFT), formerly the Initiative for Free Trade (they were initially unable to meet the formal requirements to be an “institute”), was launched by Liam Fox and Boris Johnson in 2017. It was chaired by Daniel Hannan, one the leaders of Vote Leave and the right-wing Koch-funded Cato Institute. They were exposed for offering US donors direct access to UK politicians, claiming to be in the “Brexit-influencing game”.
  • In 2018, the IFT published a US-UK trade policy paper written in consultation with dozens of other libertarian groups. It called for a no-deal Brexit, a “bonfire” of EU regulations (which we would later see under Sunak), and an NHS open to US market competition. The whole thing was designed to advance Boris Johnson’s radical Brexit agenda with the veneer of “expert” advice.
  • Dominic Raab and Liz Truss were under fire in 2019 for meeting with the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) off the books, with the think-tank bragging that it could “side-step” transparency requirements. At the time, the IEA was pushing hard for a no-deal Brexit that would see radical free-market trade reforms put in place between the US and the UK. The IEA’s lobbyist, Shanker Singham, also worked directly with the European Research Group (ERG), the ominous group of Euro-sceptic MPs that won’t reveal its list of members. 

The Brexit project was partly made possible by mysteriously-funded think tanks that viewed a hard Brexit as an opportunity for their donors to make a killing in a deregulated UK market. It was a dirty, dirty game that – despite being fully exposed – is not talked about nearly enough. 

It took Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng’s shambolic mini-budget to truly reveal the extent to which think tanks like the IEA, Adam Smith Institute, and others have massively disproportionate influence over British politics. In reality, it had been going on for far longer than that. 

If Britain is the laboratory for a gang of dodgy think tanks, where does that leave ordinary people? It renders us powerless, left to be the guinea pigs of organisations that have no real connection to our lives, values, or communities. It’s the antithesis of democracy. 

You’ll have noticed through our examples that Tufton Street operates as one giant network – bringing together staff and resources from across their global network. They also all seem to have backdoor access to Tory MPs, a nexus of corruption in the heart of politics aimed at undemocratically advancing the aims of a wealthy elite. In his new book Bullingdon Club Britain, Sam Bright (the journalist that broke the PPE contracts scandal) explains the Tufton Street network’s intrinsic connections to the British aristocracy in more detail than we have time for here.

It’s vital that the British public is aware of what’s going on behind the scenes and understands the impact these networks are having on politics. The next government needs to be under no illusion that the people of this country have had enough of this corruption of our system and want an end to the toxic impact of foreign billionaires and multinational companies. If we’re ever going to build a system that works for all of us, these kinds of actors need to be sidelined for good. They don’t have the country’s interests at heart. 

It will always be difficult for ordinary people to take a stand against these insanely wealthy and highly organised forces, but we aren’t put off by the magnitude of the challenge. We know that those forces CAN be beaten through the collective efforts of the hundreds of thousands of us who care about this country’s future and who are prepared to take a stand to get our political system back on track.

Thank you for all your support.

The Open Britain team

Open Britain is proud to be funded entirely
through small donations from our many supporters.

Your generosity makes our work possible.
Thank you!

This email was sent to If you'd no longer like to receive emails from us, you can unsubscribe by clicking here.






Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.