Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    When I say worse it can be objectively measured. In terms of cultural stability, economic freedom and geopolitical power. In all these measurements the country is worse of since 1880's.
    Culturally the country's more stable than it has ever been. It's just the news tends not to sugarcoat things any more. In terms of economic freedom, that's not necessarily a bad thing, as the economic liberalism of the 19th century caused immense misery. As for geopolitical power, the UK isn't doing to badly and arguably still punches well above its weight.

    People can't vote to improve the governmental system unless a political party wants to improve it.
    On the other hand, people have never had so much power in their hands but have been so unwilling to take the initiative.

    No political party wants to do so because it means the political parties would have to give up power to the House of Lords, Monarchy, Anglican Church, Courts and the Media.
    It's also because they can't agree. There's radicals who want the whole lot gone, reformists who want them strengthened and made more relevant, trenchant conservatives who oppose change, and downright dinosaurs who want to turn back the clock.

    Basically nobody puts forward what I want and people have never been given the option. They never will in Parliament because it goes against the political parties interest.
    Ah-hah! Revealed: it doesn't matter if what we have is the people's will. It's not what you want, and therefore it's illegitimate.

    The only way to put into action the government system I want is for the Monarch, supported by the Church of England, the Aristocracy and Court to start fighting back politically against the Commons and the Political parties which run it.
    But surely this would negate your earlier complaint that people apparently don't have the power to achieve change without political parties?

    So instead of going into politics what I should do it join the Church of England, join the Courts, join the Media.
    All three? Not sure that's possible.

    Sure at first the removal of the English Bill of Rights will have little affect, however over time the affect will be the destruction of the British state and break down of law.
    Nah. It would evolve into something else. Law won't collapse simply because the Bill of Rights is gone. We had a solid State before it, after all.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    No you can use voluntary taxation where the government asks for money and people give the government money if they want to do so. Punishment doesn't have to be done by the government, it could be social punishment by other people. No you can have many different currencies if you want, just one currency must be available to everybody through the territory under the control of a government within a state. So you could have currency competition, it happened before.
    Are there any examples of that (Government via voluntary taxation)?

    Social punishment by other people? So epople just attack each other and call it 'punishment'? Usually these things are organised so the punishments are comperable to comporable crimes.

    Right, and who pays for the upkeep of that currency?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Are there any examples of that (Government via voluntary taxation)?

    Social punishment by other people? So epople just attack each other and call it 'punishment'? Usually these things are organised so the punishments are comperable to comporable crimes.

    Right, and who pays for the upkeep of that currency?
    National debt is voluntary taxation. It was established in the 1690's to fund the build up of the Royal Navy to fight the French. People gave the government money for it with an 5-8% return on investment. This is where I get the idea of voluntary taxation from, if people want something like their exports to be protected or help when they are overseas they will give the government money for it. If they do want these things they don't pay for it. If other people want government healthcare or education they can pay for it, if not they don't have to do so. The same goes for local government. It is rather simple. You may say that this will mean the government can't do anything with voluntary taxation, this is what I want to limit the power of the government. In the end the role of the government will be protection of life, property and state so all the funds the government gets will be used for defence, prisons and foreign policy. This will not happen right away, it will take some time to improve the governmental system. Within this time things will be hard and complicated as it is worked out.

    No I mean social ostracism if someone commits a murder, rape, robbery, violent crime or leave his wife they would be shunned and people would have nothing to do with them. There could be violence against these people, but no more than there is today. This will acted as a great deterrence than prison in my view given history curtailing crime. However for people to be willing to enact social ostracism they need to believe it is moral and justice for them to do so. Basically such a system would be impossible in Britain without a revival of the Protestant faith.

    Banks, stockmarket, companies, people, anyone who wants to pay for it. Also banks could have their own currencies, also crypto-currencies.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    I've heard all sorts of things about the health service in Wales. I am wondering whether this is just 'look over there' politics...
    Basically it's been horribly mismanaged and waiting times especially are through the roof. Also Welsh Labour made some pretty huge cuts to the healthcare budget which incidentally isn't doing much for their popularity since the NHS is the biggest employer in Wales so naturally many Welsh people are turning to UKIP because people are idiots I guess.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    National debt is voluntary taxation. It was established in the 1690's to fund the build up of the Royal Navy to fight the French. People gave the government money for it with an 5-8% return on investment. This is where I get the idea of voluntary taxation from, if people want something like their exports to be protected or help when they are overseas they will give the government money for it. If they do want these things they don't pay for it. If other people want government healthcare or education they can pay for it, if not they don't have to do so. The same goes for local government. It is rather simple. You may say that this will mean the government can't do anything with voluntary taxation, this is what I want to limit the power of the government. In the end the role of the government will be protection of life, property and state so all the funds the government gets will be used for defence, prisons and foreign policy. This will not happen right away, it will take some time to improve the governmental system. Within this time things will be hard and complicated as it is worked out.

    No I mean social ostracism if someone commits a murder, rape, robbery, violent crime or leave his wife they would be shunned and people would have nothing to do with them. There could be violence against these people, but no more than there is today. This will acted as a great deterrence than prison in my view given history curtailing crime. However for people to be willing to enact social ostracism they need to believe it is moral and justice for them to do so. Basically such a system would be impossible in Britain without a revival of the Protestant faith.

    Banks, stockmarket, companies, people, anyone who wants to pay for it. Also banks could have their own currencies, also crypto-currencies.
    People get paid with a return based on forced tax, if you didn't have that you'd just have a pyramid scheme...

    How would you pay for your healthcare and education to the age of 10?

    That worked back in the day because it was difficult to move, today I get ostracised in Shropshire and I can get to Kent in a few hours without ostracism.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=william walker;51991117]

    ''The only way to put into action the government system I want is for the Monarch, supported by the Church of England, the Aristocracy and Court to start fighting back politically against the Commons and the Political parties which run it.

    So instead of going into politics what I should do it join the Church of England, join the Courts, join the Media. ''

    I think Charles I tried this ( fighting against the Commons) and he had his head chopped off in 1649 for treason. ( I don't think the British people are over fond of absolute monarchy since 1215 Magna Carta )

    James II, Charles' son, thought he'd have a go too but faced with united opposition from ex Cavaliers and Roundheads, he decided discretion was the better part of valour and did a bunk to France.

    I'm not sure how joining the declining Church of England would help?

    Not sure either about joining the aristocracy - I fear they wouldn't have me.

    I'm also not sure about whether I'm supposed to join the Court or the courts? The Court is unlikely to have me and I'm not sure how I could join the courts exactly or the media?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Really? UKIP have said that if they hold the balance of power after the election, they'd push for EU withdrawal without a referendum. That's not very democratic, is it?



    How so?

    That's politics. Parties in coalition agreements always try to force their own positions and it's no secret that UKIP wishes to withdraw from the EU. It's not like there's no precedent for a party in a coalition forcing its own agenda. And it would force EU supporting parties to justify their support for UK membership in the EU, something that's long overdue.

    UK governments, under MacMillan in 1962 and Wilson in 1967, applied to join with not even a sniff of a democratic mandate (and less than 20 years after the sacrifices made by the British people in the second world war), but were turned down both times by de Gaulle before Heath eventually negotiated our entry in 1973, with a 'swallow it whole and swallow it now' instruction to his negotiating team. How democratic was any of that?

    In 1970 the majority of the public were against Common Market membership according to opinion polls, but the establishment backed the UK's entry.

    When it came to the referendum on whether we should stay 'in' 1975, the Wilson government told the electorate they'd got 'big and significant improvements' in renegotiating our membership terms. They had not. Anyone who takes an interest in this knows how ex PM, Ted Heath reassured the public in a television interview in saying that "there are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified”. Before his death he admitted that he'd known this to be a lie. And both parties had also been warned that monetary and political union was the aim with the first application to join.

    The chairman of the Mori advised Wilson on how best to approach and win the referendum. In the referendum campaign the 'yes' side significantly outspent the 'no' side by a factor of approximately 14:1, with the official pamphlet sent to every household stuffed full of propaganda to support a yes vote and made no attempt to balance the issue.

    The no side was fractured, poorly funded, could not work together and did not stand a chance against the establishment. So yes, I'd politely call that rigged.

    It seems the establishment has not yet learned that it cannot fool all of the people all of the time and now there's another 'renegotiation' being dangled in front of the public and you wonder why some of us are a little suspicious?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    People get paid with a return based on forced tax, if you didn't have that you'd just have a pyramid scheme...

    How would you pay for your healthcare and education to the age of 10?

    That worked back in the day because it was difficult to move, today I get ostracised in Shropshire and I can get to Kent in a few hours without ostracism.
    Actually the people in the 1690's got a return based on the goods which were traded because of the protection of the Royal Navy. It wasn't done through taxation. They were basically shareholders for an economic venture. No it wouldn't be a pyramid scheme because people would be paying for a service without the incentive of a return. So some people will pay for the service other people would not. This means that the government would have to limit what it does to make sure it has the funds to do a few things. It wouldn't been like Pensions which really is a pyramid scheme.

    My parents, family, charities, church's would pay for my healthcare and education. If people that age needed money they could get a job also.

    No it isn't easy to just leave your house, family, friends, work and area in which you live and go somewhere else. Ostracism would work today as it did in the past because like people can travel so can the news of what their crime was.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=pickup;52001521]
    (Original post by william walker)

    ''The only way to put into action the government system I want is for the Monarch, supported by the Church of England, the Aristocracy and Court to start fighting back politically against the Commons and the Political parties which run it.

    So instead of going into politics what I should do it join the Church of England, join the Courts, join the Media. ''

    I think Charles I tried this ( fighting against the Commons) and he had his head chopped off in 1649 for treason. ( I don't think the British people are over fond of absolute monarchy since 1215 Magna Carta )

    James II, Charles' son, thought he'd have a go too but faced with united opposition from ex Cavaliers and Roundheads, he decided discretion was the better part of valour and did a bunk to France.

    I'm not sure how joining the declining Church of England would help?

    Not sure either about joining the aristocracy - I fear they wouldn't have me.

    I'm also not sure about whether I'm supposed to join the Court or the courts? The Court is unlikely to have me and I'm not sure how I could join the courts exactly or the media?
    Most of the Cavaliers and Roundheads were dead by the time of the Glorious Revolution. It was the Puritans and Loyalists who undertook to get rid of James the II. With Puritans failing and Loyalists succeeding. Then the actual enforcement of the Magna Carta with the English Bill of Rights and the Monarch remaining at the center of the government system. What I want is the enforcement of the English Bill of Rights and Magna Carta the Monarch having power is vital to this.

    You want power within Britain you have a number of choices within different parts of the governmental system. You don't just need to go into politics.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    No the Tory no longer exists. The Conservative isn't the same as the one which was called the Tory party. Conservatives are not Tories.

    You friend seems to be a plonker.
    And the conservatives are routinely nicknamed and identify with the term "Tories".

    This has to be one of the mootest points I've ever read.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Culturally the country's more stable than it has ever been. It's just the news tends not to sugarcoat things any more. In terms of economic freedom, that's not necessarily a bad thing, as the economic liberalism of the 19th century caused immense misery. As for geopolitical power, the UK isn't doing to badly and arguably still punches well above its weight.



    On the other hand, people have never had so much power in their hands but have been so unwilling to take the initiative.



    It's also because they can't agree. There's radicals who want the whole lot gone, reformists who want them strengthened and made more relevant, trenchant conservatives who oppose change, and downright dinosaurs who want to turn back the clock.



    Ah-hah! Revealed: it doesn't matter if what we have is the people's will. It's not what you want, and therefore it's illegitimate.



    But surely this would negate your earlier complaint that people apparently don't have the power to achieve change without political parties?



    All three? Not sure that's possible.



    Nah. It would evolve into something else. Law won't collapse simply because the Bill of Rights is gone. We had a solid State before it, after all.
    No there now isn't a dominant religion, many different national languages and government has increasing control over the environment. So cultural stability is worse then it has ever been. Oh and a government policy called multiculturalism. From 1822-1880 Britain had the fastest growth of the middle class in history, went through the industrial revolution and the growth of cities. If only we had this immense misery today Britain would be in a much better economic position. Britain is the 5th most power country in Europe, we have never been weaker.

    No it because the political parties manipulate everything.

    No the political parties agree on everything the EU, economy, defence, crime and so on. There is no different between them on anything. Sure there a some people within each party who are different, but the elite in each party is the same.

    Yes because Britain was founded on the English Bill of Rights and Glorious Revolution. Anyone who seeks to destroy that is illegitimate.

    No I am saying political parties have a manipulation over the rest of the governmental system. So nobody within the rest of the governmental system is willing to use their power, but they have power and I would be willing to use it.

    No we didn't have a state before it, we have the Union of the Crowns before it. The law must have a cultural basis, if the cultural basis is removed the law is meaningless other than who has the most guns. So removal of the English bill of Rights is leading to tyranny.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    And the conservatives are routinely nicknamed and identify with the term "Tories".

    This has to be one of the mootest points I've ever read.
    But they shouldn't be because the Tories were a different Loyalist political party, the Conservatives are a Unionist political party. People are wrong and I call them for it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    But they shouldn't be because the Tories were a different Loyalist political party, the Conservatives are a Unionist political party. People are wrong and I call them for it.
    You don't get to choose the terms with which an enormous sociopolitical group within the UK define themselves because the name they use had a different policy centuries ago than the new group has today.

    You're being silly.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Dianne James has already said Ukip won't respect an 'In' vote because it will mean the referendum was rigged. No better than the SNP.
    I haven't looked at any polls but I have a sneaking suspicion that when the In-Out referendum comes it would have to be rigged for the outcome to be an 'In' vote.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    You don't get to choose the terms with which an enormous sociopolitical group within the UK define themselves because the name they use had a different policy centuries ago than the new group has today.

    You're being silly.
    No I just get to say they are wrong to so, because they are wrong to do so. Facts are never silly.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    No there now isn't a dominant religion, many different national languages and government has increasing control over the environment. So cultural stability is worse then it has ever been.
    This does not follow. By giving people the right to practice their own faith without fear of oppression, we are actually more peaceful. Compare the occasional religious riots of the early 19th Century and earlier.

    Oh and a government policy called multiculturalism. From 1822-1880 Britain had the fastest growth of the middle class in history, went through the industrial revolution and the growth of cities. If only we had this immense misery today Britain would be in a much better economic position. Britain is the 5th most power country in Europe, we have never been weaker.
    I fail to see why we should care about being the strongest when we are already quite strong. And there's nothing we can do about it anyway. Demographically and politically, the facts are against you.

    And it disturbs me that you think mass suffering is no barrier to achieving some pointless top dog position.

    No it because the political parties manipulate everything.
    You and them have a lot in common.

    No the political parties agree on everything the EU, economy, defence, crime and so on. There is no different between them on anything. Sure there a some people within each party who are different, but the elite in each party is the same.
    I think you overstate your case,

    Yes because Britain was founded on the English Bill of Rights and Glorious Revolution. Anyone who seeks to destroy that is [FONT=arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif][COLOR=#505050]illegitimate.
    What does that even mean? And sorry, anyone who seeks to destroy them but does it democratically can do whatever the hell they like. I may disagree with them but I respect the will of Parliament, as a true British person ought to do.

    No I am saying political parties have a manipulation over the rest of the governmental system. So nobody within the rest of the governmental system is willing to use their power, but they have power and I would be willing to use it.
    Because if they used it, the people would be outraged, and they would no longer be permitted to have that power.

    No we didn't have a state before it, we have the Union of the Crowns before it.
    Jesus H. Christ...yeah, England was an anarchy before 1707 :rolleyes:

    The law must have a cultural basis, if the cultural basis is removed the law is meaningless other than who has the most guns. So removal of the English bill of Rights is leading to tyranny.
    This does not follow. I wouldn't want the Bill of Rights removed personally, but it does not follow that it would automatically lead to tyranny if it were removed. As it stands, your attitude screams more of tyranny than anything I've read so far.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    This does not follow. By giving people the right to practice their own faith without fear of oppression, we are actually more peaceful. Compare the occasional religious riots of the early 19th Century and earlier.



    I fail to see why we should care about being the strongest when we are already quite strong. And there's nothing we can do about it anyway. Demographically and politically, the facts are against you.

    And it disturbs me that you think mass suffering is no barrier to achieving some pointless top dog position.



    You and them have a lot in common.



    I think you overstate your case,



    What does that even mean? And sorry, anyone who seeks to destroy them but does it democratically can do whatever the hell they like. I may disagree with them but I respect the will of Parliament, as a true British person ought to do.



    Because if they used it, the people would be outraged, and they would no longer be permitted to have that power.



    Jesus H. Christ...yeah, England was an anarchy before 1707 :rolleyes:



    This does not follow. I wouldn't want the Bill of Rights removed personally, but it does not follow that it would automatically lead to tyranny if it were removed. As it stands, your attitude screams more of tyranny than anything I've read so far.
    Peace is freedom and justice, we have less freedom and less justice. Like the 10 Protestants who were taken off a bus near Kingsmill and shot in the head by the Provisional IRA. Or the Protestant B&B owners who have been forced to allow homosexuals to stay on their property by the government. The fact is the Protestant freedom and justice is being attacked by the government in the name of civil liberties and social justice. I have not idea what riots you are talking about.

    Because the stronger we are the greater protection with have of our interests and people. We are weaken than we have ever been this is a worsening of Britain since the 1880's. But the economic, cultural and military all support me. Those people get paid in cities 3 times what they could get paid on a farm, they we in brick housing rather than wood. So they were gaining improvement over what went before.

    The next two things you say aren't arguments.

    So there is no point then if the Parliament says the Monarch should be removed and all black people should be deported so long as it has a majority vote in the Commons. I really think Parliament and democracy must have blocks in it power to destroy and ruin the country. No the Puritans support Parliament above the law, so you are a Puritan.

    So if the Courts block the government passing laws because they are unlawful the country would be outraged and want to remove the courts? Or the Monarch blocked Gay Marriage because the Church of England didn't support would the country want to remove the Monarch. No these things are what the Commons wants and the political parties want, not the vast majority of the country.

    No the British state was founded in the Glorious Revolution which was support by the Parliament of Scotland and Ireland. Not 1707 that was the act of Parliamentary Union.

    So can Protestant freely keep arms, no because government has taken that freedom from them. Do people have the right of appeal within the House of Lords, no because the government has taken that right from them. So you remove the English Bill of Rights and it leads to tyranny.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    Peace is freedom and justice, we have less freedom and less justice. Like the 10 Protestants who were taken off a bus near Kingsmill and shot in the head by the Provisional IRA.

    So can Protestant freely keep arms, no because government has taken that freedom from them.
    I wonder why the Govt took away that right?
    Nov 1974:
    4 November: The UDA shot dead a Catholic civilian as he stood on security duty outside a pub on University Road, Belfast.
    10 November: The UDA shot dead a Catholic civilian at his home on Clovelly Street, Belfast.
    12 November: The UDA killed a Catholic civilian in a drive-by shooting on Ardmore Road, Derry.
    22 November: The UDA shot dead a Catholic civilian at her workplace on Springfield Road, Belfast.
    25 November: The UDA shot dead a Protestant civilian outside Ewart's Mill, Belfast. They assumed he was a Catholic.
    25 November: The UDA shot dead a Catholic civilian as he sat in a car on Portaferry Road
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    They don't care whether most people want to stay in or whether membership is a benefit to the UK. That's why they would not hold a referendum or respect an in vote if one was held.
    You are right that they do not care what most people want. That's rather implicit in all political parties though - they generally endeavour to change views and build support for policies rather than simply competing to reflect pubic opinion.

    I suspect they do care if it is of benefit to the UK. It may just be that they have a different understanding of what is beneficial for the UK.

    UKIP are exceptional only insofar as they are extreme. They cannot conceive of a political relationship with Europe that would be beneficial to the UK: no change will ever be good enough for them.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    Peace is freedom and justice, we have less freedom and less justice. Like the 10 Protestants who were taken off a bus near Kingsmill and shot in the head by the Provisional IRA.
    Quady has answered this. You think someone done by Protestants is fine, but the same done by non-Protestants is wrong. You're a hypocrite.

    Or the Protestant B&B owners who have been forced to allow homosexuals to stay on their property by the government.
    Good. Freedom does not mean intolerance has to be tolerated.

    The fact is the Protestant freedom and justice is being attacked by the government in the name of civil liberties and social justice.
    'Protestant' freedom? Protestant freedom can go hang. The freedom which is owed to everyone should prevail.

    I have not idea what riots you are talking about.
    The Gordon Riots. The Priestley Riots. The '45. The '15. The Sacherevell Riots.

    Because the stronger we are the greater protection with have of our interests and people.
    Who is 'we'? It seems evident your 'we' does not include many people. It certainly doesn't include me.

    We are weaken than we have ever been this is a worsening of Britain since the 1880's. But the economic, cultural and military all support me.
    Correlation doesn't match with causation. Britain declined relatively from the 1880s because the other countries were catching up, and Britain had already reached saturation. The invention of the airplane put paid to our naval supremacy.

    Those people get paid in cities 3 times what they could get paid on a farm, they we in brick housing rather than wood. So they were gaining improvement over what went before.
    What?

    So there is no point then if the Parliament says the Monarch should be removed and all black people should be deported so long as it has a majority vote in the Commons. I really think Parliament and democracy must have blocks in it power to destroy and ruin the country.
    That block can only really be public opinion, for it to be legitimate. I don't want black people removed for being black, and I would fight such a proposal with all my strength, but the only way to undo such a proposal is through persuading the people it's a bad idea. Otherwise I'm no better than a tyrant.

    No the Puritans support Parliament above the law, so you are a Puritan.
    Hah! Hilarious That isn't what the Puritans believed.

    So if the Courts block the government passing laws because they are unlawful the country would be outraged and want to remove the courts?
    The courts are generally permitted by law and custom to interpet law. They are not permitted to strike it down.

    Or the Monarch blocked Gay Marriage because the Church of England didn't support would the country want to remove the Monarch. No these things are what the Commons wants and the political parties want, not the vast majority of the country.
    Opinion polls show gay marriage is supported by a majority of the population. If a majority didn't, then it's merely the work of a general election for them to seek to reverse it.

    No the British state was founded in the Glorious Revolution which was support by the Parliament of Scotland and Ireland. Not 1707 that was the act of Parliamentary Union.
    No British state was formed by the Glorious Revolution. The 1707 Union took place in part because Scotland and England were drifting apart.

    Anyway, it doesn't negate my point that we had a state before the Glorious Revolution, and that was England.

    So can Protestant freely keep arms, no because government has taken that freedom from them.
    Yes, in the interests of public safety. We have no need of public ownership of firearms. What good is a pistol against a tank?

    Do people have the right of appeal within the House of Lords, no because the government has taken that right from them.
    The Supreme Court is available instead, which is basically the House of Lords' as a court of appeal anyway.

    So you remove the English Bill of Rights and it leads to tyranny.
    Not at all. We could abolish the Bill of Rights tomorrow and this country would carry on. You'd need an actual Act which changed how this country operated, such as to do away with any need for ministerial accountability to Parliament, which would put us on the road to tyranny.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.