TPA outraged NHS being inclusive of gay parents


10:15 am - May 29th 2012

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

NHS Scotland, as part of its annual review of literature it distributes to people, decided to make some changes.

In particular, it is replacing the word ‘dad’ with ‘partner’ in its pregnancy handbook.

The 200-page guide, titled Ready Steady Baby, will be changed after they received a complaint that ‘dad’ was discriminating against same-sex couples.

The Daily Mail is outraged this change is being made “for fear of offending gay and lesbian parents”. Predictable.

What’s bizarre is the reaction by the Taxpayers Alliance. Apparently it is a “waste of money” even though such changes are made regularly anyway.

Robert Oxley, from the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘It’s barmy that the NHS is wasting money reprinting guides because of a single complaint. Becoming a dad isn’t synonymous with one type of couple so it seems ridiculous to worry about changing it.

The NHS has bigger priorities than prescribing how to define who wants to be called dad.

What a tool.

For NHS Scotland it is ‘standard practice’ to review publications on a yearly basis.

A spokesperson told the Mail:

At the time this complaint was received the Ready Steady Baby text had just been through its annual review, changes made and the new edition was printed in December 2011.

The review process identified the need to use language that was more inclusive, particularly in relation to same-sex partnerships.

In other words they’ll change it at the next review without incurring extra costs. Yet the TPA is outraged anyway.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Actually, I think the TPA are basically correct.

“The NHS has bigger priorities than prescribing how to define who wants to be called dad.”

Remember, it’s not just printing costs you have to consider (even assuming the OP is correct in saying that there were none, though from the article it suggests that the guide was printed in Dec 2011 and a new version was printed with the new wording, at at cost of 100k).

You als have to consider the time and admin etc going into the decision making process, which is a real cost you have to consider.

The TPA just show themselves to be publicity whores by this behaviour.

Oxley also joined in with the Express’ made-up rubbish about “EU Forces Petrol Price Rise Shock Horror” yesterday:

http://zelo.tv/JPyZnQ

Did he bother to check out the story before shooting his mouth off? Did he heck. And someone’s stumping up a million and a half notes a year for this rabble.

It’s a waste of that person’s money, but hey ho, they’re an easy target.

3. Chaise Guevara

@ 1 Tyler

“You als have to consider the time and admin etc going into the decision making process, which is a real cost you have to consider.”

Yes, but that cost exists whichever decision is made, so you’re falsely attributing the cost solely to the decision that was, in fact, made.

You had the correct word there in your fourth paragraph, 2rd line : Parent.

To save all arguments they could just word it : Parent/parents, if some people feel the need to make everything politically correct.

If you want to get really silly about things you could always word it : Homosapien/Homosapiens concerned.

To simplify matters you could just word it : To whom it concerns.

5. Chaise Guevara

Comments on that DM article are even better than usual!

“Shall we remove son and daughter grandchild”

Seems stupid, but if you insist.

“The NHS has wiped out Dads.”

They’ve vanished just like that, poof! Bloody poofs.

“I have no problem with same sex relationships [or any other] but this takes things too far. ”

It’s fine as long as they don’t act like real people.

Isn’t ‘TPA outraged’ pretty much a universal self-explanatory headline like ‘Frank Field wrong’?

To avoid any confusion, the word “poof” used by Chaise Guevara in comment 5 does not appear anywhere in the Daily Mail comments. It’s a word he has chosen to bring into the conversation.

8. Chaise Guevara

@ 7 hobson

“To avoid any confusion, the word “poof” used by Chaise Guevara in comment 5 does not appear anywhere in the Daily Mail comments. It’s a word he has chosen to bring into the conversation.”

I would have thought the use of quote marks would be enough to avoid any confusion, but clarify the obvious if you like. Are you going anywhere with this? Is it going to be a fascinating explanation of how attacks on gay equality are not at all driven by homophobia, oh dear me no, it’s just that people want to defend traditional family values blah blah blah?

I am pointing out that you have chosen to introduce hate language attacking gay and lesbian people into this debate.

In answer to your question, I believe attacks on gay equality, whether in a Daily Mail article or by throwing around homophobic language on a comments thread, are generally motivated by homophobia.

10. Chaise Guevara

@ 9 hobson

“I am pointing out that you have chosen to introduce hate language attacking gay and lesbian people into this debate.

In answer to your question, I believe attacks on gay equality, whether in a Daily Mail article or by throwing around homophobic language on a comments thread, are generally motivated by homophobia.”

Seriously? I write a comment taking the piss out of homophobes and you accuse me of attacking gay equality? Jesus wept. I think your irony filter needs recalibrating.

@ 10 Chaise Guevara

I’m reminded of another comment thread where you boasted about racially abusing some “friends” but insisted it was okay because you were clearly being ironic. I think it would be a good idea if you stopped and considered the language you use when talking about minorities.

12. Chaise Guevara

@ 11 hobson

Okay, whatever. You post a passive-aggressive, vague attack on me, you take my words maliciously out of context, you refuse to accept irony even when it’s staring you in the fucking face, and now this. I’m not going to be patronised by a deeply stupid, malevolent little piece of work like you. I think it would be a good idea if you stopped and considered that you don’t understand the concept of “context”, and that maybe you should look it up before launching another idiotic attack on another poster. Christ.

13. Shatterface

Seems like Chaise use of the word ‘poofs’ was free indirect speech to me, not an expression of homophobia on his own behalf but an inference of homophobia drawn from the TPA throwing a fit over a minor change that harms nobody.

14. Chaise Guevara

Cheers, Shatterface. For a moment there I thought I was going nuts.

15. the a&e charge nurse

[9] you risk trivialising serious accusations once you start bandying about terms like homophobia, or racist.
Arm chair revolutionary, maybe – homophobic, or racist, certainly not.

16. Chaise Guevara

@ 15 a&e

Ha! Appreciated.

17. Edward Lyons

Did you hear the TPA complaining about the £20 million wasted on a Royal wedding last year? No, neither did I.

We all know the TPA is an extension of the Tory party which gave the country section 28. But, of course, the Tory party have changed. Yeah right!

18. Just Visiting

I’m in two minds here.

A Dad is a bigger thing than a Partner.

As a dad reading the leaflet – I can imagine the pamphlet would be less engaging if it never called me dad.

If in Primary School leaflets they don’t drop the word Parent, but use often ‘Parent or Guardian’…
So… could not the NHS have used ‘Dad or Partner’ – rather than losing that meaningful word?

It feels a shame to lower language to the ‘lowest common denominator’.

19. Just Visiting

At my kids’ primary school they haven’t ditched the significant word ‘Parent’ in favour of the less significant role ‘Guardian’.

Their leaflets often say ‘Parent or Guardian’.

So why did the Scottish NHS not say ‘Dad or Parent’ ?

It feels to me like a rush to the ‘lowest common denominator’ if words that apply to a very significant role are to be lost.

Especially if such ‘1984’ing’ of language is made because on such a non-statistically meaningful evidence – just 1 complaint!

What happens if next year 2 dads complain they they feel excluded, as their role is no longer specifically mentioned – will they put the word back !

20. Just Visiting

Sorry folks – duplication LC was slow there -I waited 15 minutes and when nothing showed, assumed my wise words were lost in the ether and needing repeating !!

Wow. Hobson wins the award for ‘most pathetic concern troll’.

In real life, when people are being euphemistically racist or homophobic, rephrasing their argument in terms of poofs and darkies is *entirely* appropriate, since it highlights what they actually mean.

My only issue here is that “Dad” and “Partner” aren’t synonymous.

Better just to let “Dad” (and “Mum”) slowly become unisex over time?

(Oh, and Chaise @14. You thought you were going nuts? Having a go at the mentally-challenged now are you? Disgraceful.)

23. Chaise Guevara

@ 18 JV

“As a dad reading the leaflet – I can imagine the pamphlet would be less engaging if it never called me dad.”

That’s an interesting point. Although I really doubt that the content of a leaflet would be able to diminish the excitement of a prospective father.

“If in Primary School leaflets they don’t drop the word Parent, but use often ‘Parent or Guardian’…
So… could not the NHS have used ‘Dad or Partner’ – rather than losing that meaningful word?”

Well, it’s a tad redundant, but I don’t see a problem with it.

24. Chaise Guevara

@ 22 Jack C

“You thought you were going nuts? Having a go at the mentally-challenged now are you? Disgraceful.”

LOL. Actually, since I called hobson an “idiot”, I’m now waiting for him to dig out the fact that 100 years ago this word referred to what’s now called “profound mental retardation”, and tell me I’m a disablist to boot.

@ 24 CG

“To boot” or do you mean TWO boots? Clearly a cheap pop at amputees who cannot wear two shoes. You Sir are a disablist! ;-D

@ 1 Tyler

Actually the change won’t increase printing costs since the handbook is reviewed annually and there will be other changes that have been made. Unless you want to complain about the extra ink used to print the extra letters in the word “Partner” instead of “Dad” then there will be no increase in costs.

26. Mr S. Pill

who funds the “Taxpayers'” Alliance? Cos I pay tax and I really bloody hope it doesn’t go towards these fuckers. can’t they just rename themselves “Daily Mail Alliance” and get it over with?

27. tigerdarwin

This just shows the TPA for what they are a bunch of Tea Party loving, US funded bunch of bigots

28. tigerdarwin

@ 26

http://www.taxpayersalliance.org/news/tpa-funding-were-closing-in

this lot will tell you a few of their lovely funders. The milk of human kindness mate

The TaxPayers AllLiars has got nothing to do with scrutinising how the tax paid by ‘hard working familes’ (yada yada..), is spent and everything to do with a hard-right political agenda that cherry-picks what it gets all sniffy about.

30. Just Visiting

Chaise

> That’s an interesting point. Although I really doubt that the content of a leaflet would be able to diminish the excitement of a prospective father.

No one claimed that it would do that.
I meant more, that it would make it less likely for Dad’s to read the book to the end.

And some argue that we have a problem with some, increasing, percentage of fathers not being engaged with and staying with their children until adulthood.

So a bit of an own-goal if the book is less read as a result of the language-cleansing.

>>“If in Primary School leaflets they don’t drop the word Parent, but use often ‘Parent or Guardian’…
>>So… could not the NHS have used ‘Dad or Partner’ – rather than losing that meaningful word?”

>Well, it’s a tad redundant, but I don’t see a problem with it.

OK.
I do think it a shame that one PC complaint undermines the value of a publication in reaching and emphasing the role of Dads – a key role for children.

31. Robin Levett

@JV #30:

I do think it a shame that one PC complaint undermines the value of a publication in reaching and emphasing the role of Dads – a key role for children.

If true, surely this is all the more reason why the law should not discriminate against children who have two Dads?

32. Chaise Guevara

@ 30 JV

“No one claimed that it would do that.
I meant more, that it would make it less likely for Dad’s to read the book to the end.”

Sure, maybe.

“And some argue that we have a problem with some, increasing, percentage of fathers not being engaged with and staying with their children until adulthood.

So a bit of an own-goal if the book is less read as a result of the language-cleansing.”

Is this book going to prevent fathers from neglecting/abandoning their children, then? Some book!

Oh, and “language-cleansing”? Really? That’s your word for the updating of one publication to make it more accurate? God, you grumpy-about-equality types really do have the victim card stapled to your hands, don’t you? Look at me, I’m being repressed!

“I do think it a shame that one PC complaint undermines the value of a publication in reaching and emphasing the role of Dads – a key role for children.”

Maybe, but it’s also a shame that the publication as previously written undermined its own value in reaching and emphasising the role of gay partners – and reinforced a bigoted stereotype into the bargain.

33. Just Visiting

Chaise

Come on old chap, no need to get emotional.

> Is this book going to prevent fathers from neglecting/abandoning their children, then? > Some book!

Obvious straw man.

Unless you thin there is absolutely no issue of fathers playing less than a full role in their children’s life in Scotland – then surely the publishers should, among other objectives, make the book as attractive to Dads, even the semi-engaged types – as they can.

> Oh, and “language-cleansing”? Really? That’s your word for the updating of one publication to make it more accurate? God, you grumpy-about-equality types really do have the victim card stapled to your hands, don’t you?

You’re right, it wasn’ a great phrase.

But calm down.

When the majority of children have Dads (at least in the early years) – why is it ‘accurate’ to move from a specific term that fits -to one that is much vaguer.

What about the books readership by same-sex male couples – o your logic it would be more accurate to remove the word Mother from the book too !

> “I do think it a shame that one PC complaint undermines the value of a publication in reaching and emphasing the role of Dads – a key role for children.”

> Maybe, but it’s also a shame that the publication as previously written undermined its own value in reaching and emphasising the role of gay partners – and reinforced a bigoted stereotype into the bargain.

Now’s the time to look in the mirror – you used the phrase ‘Look at me, I’m being repressed!’ in mockery -but now you’re using it in seriousness on behalf of same-sex parents.

You can’t have it both ways round.

How did it reinforce a ‘biggoted stereotype’ by using the word Dad? After all 100% of kids have biological Dads, even if not all have a Dad as parent

And why didn’t they replace Dad with ‘Dad or partner’ ?

You’d agree that is accurate, excludes no one – yet retains the truth that most babies do have Dads present.

And lastly – why are you so emotional on this issue?
Can we agree to tone it down?

34. Chaise Guevara

@ 33 JV

“Obvious straw man.”

Exaggeration maybe. See below.

“Unless you thin there is absolutely no issue of fathers playing less than a full role in their children’s life in Scotland – then surely the publishers should, among other objectives, make the book as attractive to Dads, even the semi-engaged types – as they can.”

Let me repeat the previous question more reasonably: what basis do you have for thinking that a) the book will do this and b) making the book attractive to dads will boost this effect beyond the countereffect of making it less attractive to lesbian partners? It’s not just a numbers game, because of the difference between “exclude” and “not single out for specal mention”.

“You’re right, it wasn’ a great phrase.

But calm down.”

I wasn’t aware that rhetorical questions and rhetorical rhetoric indicated hysteria/anger/panic or whatever it is I’m meant to calm down from. If anything, the person who used a phrase that sounds tantamount to book-burning is the one who needs to calm down.

“When the majority of children have Dads (at least in the early years) – why is it ‘accurate’ to move from a specific term that fits -to one that is much vaguer.”

Because “partner” still fits. So it encompasses dads and lesbian partners accurately. I think you’re confusing accuracy with precision. Which is pedantic, I know, but I meant the former and you’re interpreting it (honestly, I assume) as the latter.

Calling me a “man” is more precise, and equally accurate, as calling me a “person”. Whereas referring to a 90% male, 10% female group as “men” is inaccurate, “people” is accurate. See?

“What about the books readership by same-sex male couples – o your logic it would be more accurate to remove the word Mother from the book too !”

It’s a pregnancy handbook. Pregnancy tends to require a female participant.

“Now’s the time to look in the mirror – you used the phrase ‘Look at me, I’m being repressed!’ in mockery -but now you’re using it in seriousness on behalf of same-sex parents.

You can’t have it both ways round.”

I can, because you’re equivocating. Excluding gay partners does, in all seriousness, reinforce a bigoted stereotype. Using the word “partner” doesn’t cleanse the language, whatever that even means. The word “dad” will still be in your dictionary.

[If you’re tempted to say that you already sort-of withdrew “language-cleansing”, I’m aware of that and accept it, but it’s necessary context for the above.]

“How did it reinforce a ‘biggoted stereotype’ by using the word Dad? After all 100% of kids have biological Dads, even if not all have a Dad as parent”

I’m guessing that this book is for a pregnant woman and her partner to guide her through the pregnancy and afterwards. I.E. the person reading it, if not the mother, is the person who will be experiencing the whole thing along with the mother. So it doesn’t apply to surrogates, or to absentee fathers.

If it’s a guidebook designed for biological fathers that makes whether or not they are still with the mother irrelevant, then objection withdrawn. But I’m guessing not. That would be a book called Why You Have To Pay Child Support.

“And why didn’t they replace Dad with ‘Dad or partner’ ?

You’d agree that is accurate, excludes no one – yet retains the truth that most babies do have Dads present.”

I should point out that using “partner” exclusively would not remove the truth that most babies have (present) fathers. But as I said above, I have no problem at all with “Dad or partner”. If you’re honestly asking me why they didn’t use that phrase, I can only reply that I wasn’t invited to the meeting.

“And lastly – why are you so emotional on this issue?
Can we agree to tone it down?”

Again: I’m not. The only part where I metaphorically raised my voice was to mock your melodramatic appeal to emotion by chalking a revision for accuracy up to “language-cleansing”. So I’m all for calm, rational discussion, but it’s a bit silly for you to get melodramatic then complain when I give you like for like. Going forward, I will if you will. Unless something triggers off actual emotion, of course. If someone enters this thread and starts talking about how a baby needs a dad to have a “real” family I can’t promise to remain level-headed.

Chaise @ 34:

“It’s a pregnancy handbook. Pregnancy tends to require a female participant.”

What about people who self-identify as men trapped in women’s bodies? I think that by your logic, it probably would be best to remove the word “mother” from the book, in case you end up excluding these people.

36. Chaise Guevara

@ 35 P Ve M

“What about people who self-identify as men trapped in women’s bodies? I think that by your logic, it probably would be best to remove the word “mother” from the book, in case you end up excluding these people.”

Really? That’s fascinating. Could you join the dots for me? Because I don’t remember saying any word should be removed from anything. Therefore it’s hard to see where you’re seeing this in my “logic”.

Chaise @ 36:

“Because I don’t remember saying any word should be removed from anything.”

Erm, yes you have, you’ve been spending quite a few posts arguing that the word “father” should be removed from a pregnancy handbook because it might make people feel excluded. But the word “mother” might also exclude some people. Therefore, if words ought to be removed in case they exclude people, the word “mother” should be removed as well.

38. Chaise Guevara

@ P Ve M

“Erm, yes you have, you’ve been spending quite a few posts arguing that the word “father” should be removed from a pregnancy handbook because it might make people feel excluded.”

Please point out where I said that.

39. Just Visiting

Chaise

you’re playing mind games now.

You still seem to be less logical than you normally are on LC.

Maybe you didn’t use the exact words that:

> the word “father” should be removed from a pregnancy handbook because it might make people feel excluded.”

then reading back through yoyur posts that certainly seems to be what you mean – specifically nowhere have you argued the word should be retained.

But if that is not your view – you better tell us all exactly what your view is, and aim to make it clear so that we can’t misunderstood your view.

40. Just Visiting

Chaise

> If anything, the person who used a phrase that sounds tantamount to book-burning is the one who needs to calm down.

Now you want to introduce book-burnng analogies ? That’s plain ridiculous!

You’re still reacting emotionally.

> I’m guessing that this book is for a pregnant woman and her partner to guide her through the pregnancy and afterwards. I.E. the person reading it, if not the mother, is the person who will be experiencing the whole thing along with the mother. So it doesn’t apply to surrogates, or to absentee fathers.

So you think that the Scottish NHS have a process to decide which pregnant women is a biological mother, and which is a surrogate, and don’t give the leaflet to the latter?

Again this seems like a statement not born out of calm thought.

Chaise @ 38:

“Please point out where I said that.”

Erm, seriously? The Scottish NHS has removed the term “dad” from one of its leaflets. You’ve been arguing that they were right to do so, and said that the old leaflets were bad because they excluded gay couples. If you don’t think that we should remove exclusionary terms from NHS leaflets, you’ve picked a very odd way of expressing yourself.

42. Chaise Guevara

@ 41 P Ve M

“Erm, seriously? The Scottish NHS has removed the term “dad” from one of its leaflets. You’ve been arguing that they were right to do so, and said that the old leaflets were bad because they excluded gay couples. If you don’t think that we should remove exclusionary terms from NHS leaflets, you’ve picked a very odd way of expressing yourself.”

So you’re just going to keep making the claim but refusing to back it up? The leaflets WERE bad because they excluded gay couples. However, it is in fact possible to include gay couples without removing the term “dad”. When JV asked why the leaflets couldn’t say “dad or partner”, I specifically said that was fine with me. Apparently you find this an “odd way of expressing myself”, but you don’t say why.

So seriously, back the claim or drop it.

43. Chaise Guevara

@ 39 JV

“you’re playing mind games now.”

You’ve got to be kidding. I specifically said, to you personally, that I was fine with “dad” being retained. See post 23, which you in fact replied to.

What is it with the internet? Express a view that isn’t on one extreme or the other and it seems to blow everyone’s mind.

44. Chaise Guevara

@ 40 JV

“Now you want to introduce book-burnng analogies ? That’s plain ridiculous!”

Indeed! As ridiculous, as, say, talking about “linguistic cleansing”. What sort of person would bring that sort of melodrama to a thread?

“You’re still reacting emotionally.”

Well, I’m not a vulcan. But you seem to be going out of your way to annoy, by taking the conversation to stupid places then whinging about what a stupid place we’re in. And also by hammering this whole ad hom argument in the first place.

“So you think that the Scottish NHS have a process to decide which pregnant women is a biological mother, and which is a surrogate, and don’t give the leaflet to the latter?”

Fair point. But that doesn’t add up to a need to remove the word “mother”, does it? Stick “mother or surrogate” in there by all means.

“Again this seems like a statement not born out of calm thought.”

It’s hard being you. I mean, you just go around being passive aggressive all the time, and for some reason people around you react in an angry way! How unfair!

Chaise:

You might not have said that removing the word dad was the *only* right course of action available, but you certainly gave the impression that you thought it was *a* right course of action, and you argued that removing it was better than keeping the current wording. If the distinction is really so important to you, I’ll amend my original statement to “according to your logic, it would be better to remove the term ‘mother’ from the pregnancy handbook than to keep it in.”

“It’s hard being you. I mean, you just go around being passive aggressive all the time,”

Hate to break it to you, but you seem to be the most passive-aggressive person on the thread at the moment. Unless you’re already aware of this, and calling everybody else passive-aggressive is in fact part of your passive-aggressiveness?

46. Daniel Pitt

The Taxpayer’s Alliance are a bunch of reactionary, ignorant and egotistical morons, a front for the Tory Rabid Right who deserve no attention. Well done to NHS Scotland for taking such a progressive step and ignoring these extremist nutjobs.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    TPA outraged NHS being inclusive of gay parents http://t.co/qgZROh00

  2. Kathryn

    TPA outraged NHS being inclusive of gay parents http://t.co/qgZROh00

  3. Arun Mehta

    Taxpayer's Alliance outraged NHS being inclusive of gay parents. http://t.co/3xSSk8QY via @libcon

  4. Neil Courtman

    TPA outraged NHS being inclusive of gay parents http://t.co/qgZROh00

  5. Jason Brickley

    TPA outraged NHS being inclusive of gay parents http://t.co/frmnTedQ

  6. leftlinks

    Liberal Conspiracy – TPA outraged NHS being inclusive of gay parents http://t.co/UmLgny6m

  7. Tim Hardy

    Taxpayers Alliance outraged that NHS Scotland is being inclusive of gay parents http://t.co/MaHMzj0w

  8. Andrew Page

    Taxpayers Alliance outraged that NHS Scotland is being inclusive of gay parents http://t.co/MaHMzj0w

  9. Noodlehands

    Taxpayers Alliance outraged that NHS Scotland is being inclusive of gay parents http://t.co/MaHMzj0w

  10. Croydon feed

    The Taxpayers Alliance are on drugs again: http://t.co/ilbmNSmj. Heaven forbid same sex types etc etc? There is … http://t.co/YKUWe19P

  11. Paul Hunter

    Taxpayers Alliance outraged that NHS Scotland is being inclusive of gay parents http://t.co/MaHMzj0w

  12. Thomas McKenzie

    Taxpayers Alliance outraged that NHS Scotland is being inclusive of gay parents http://t.co/MaHMzj0w

  13. Richard

    TPA outraged NHS being inclusive of gay parents | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/ccmYShIv via @libcon

  14. Ravi Subramanian

    Taxpayers Alliance outraged NHS being inclusive of gay parents http://t.co/KedbmPid

  15. Michael Bater

    TPA outraged NHS being inclusive of gay parents | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/gi5YsU1h via @libcon

  16. Chris Hanrahan

    TPA outraged NHS being inclusive of gay parents | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/6w9i3Q0J via @libcon

  17. R. Ville

    ha, tax payers alliance angry about NHS Scotland's consideration of gays as possible parents http://t.co/Szsw9BI0 #fools

  18. Jack Johnstone

    ha, tax payers alliance angry about NHS Scotland's consideration of gays as possible parents http://t.co/Szsw9BI0 #fools





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.