Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Beersheba Bus Bomb watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by giordano)
    Would further setbacks make it even more evident how effective it was? a strange way of reasoning
    since the wall/fence was built, the number of attacks on Israeli civilians has dropped by 70%. no suicide bomb attacks in 5 months. the attack today was a setback, more than a setback for those who lost innocent loved ones, but such a setback only highlights the fact that the wall has saved lives, hundreds of Israeli lives. and if that wall/fence saved just one, it was worth every attack, condemnation, insult, political or otherwise that the Israeli government has had to sustain in protecting its people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ha, let them build their wall, BUT ON THEIR OWN LAND...

    Israel has no legal claim to the land, just some religious references... Historically they were forced to move, but why should they get it back in the year 2004 AD?.... Give North America back to the Indians.

    If the state of Israel is ever formed (completley), then i for one would support the forced deportation of all zionists and zionist appologists to the "promised land"...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    so you dont believe that the Palestinian terrorists are killing because they believe Jews shouldnt exist in the middle east? or in Gaza or the West Bank for starters?
    I certainly don't, I don't know about the other poster, although i'm guessing that you do. Actually this belief is largely ill-founded, a study carried out - and documented on a programme called 'mind of a suicide bomber' - on captured 'would-be' suicide bombers revealed their motives were rather different to Zionist annihilation. When discussed with them the vast majority argued that their motives were personal rather than political, they were Palestinians who had known a relative or friend die (often in crossfire) and wanted to punish Israel who they deemed responsible. Only a few argued their motives were religious or political. Indeed some (I can't remember the percentage) expressed a wish to see peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

    EDIT: Indeed even some of the most extreme Palestinian terrorist groups most notably Hamas have shown signs of recognising the state of Israels' right to exist, the assassinated leader of Hamas, Sheikh Yassin, said that if the West Bank and Gazan Palestinians voted yes in a referendum to a two-state solution allowing Israel to keep its pre-1967 land he would accept and respect it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    That may be the reason for some terrorist groups but I don't believe it is the sole reason for the conflict. What I meant was that it is a bitter cycle because whenever one side attacks the other the other one retaliates and this will continue in a bitter cycle.
    the terrorists attack indiscriminately irrespective of Israeli operations. The Israelis continued with their counter-terrorist measures despite months without a suicide bomb. the Palestinian terrorists have an open ideological hatred for the state of Israel, there goal is to destroy it. The Israelis want to end the terrorist threat, or at the least continually protect its people. Neither would suggest it is a tit-for-tat conflict, no matter how much spin is put on it.

    If you are going to retaliate against a terrorist act surely it would make sense to retaliate against the group that carried out the attack rather than just any group. The terrorist organisations in Palistine are not all the same.
    The terrorist groups in the disputed territories all have one common aim: the destruction of an Israeli state. They are also manifestations of one and the same larger group, sharing material resource, hierarachal direction and financial support. The Israeli state has one goal: to protect its people from terror.
    You dont protect people by acting AFTER they have been attacked and murdered. The war against terrorism is pre-emptive, pre-emptive against terrorist groups that threaten the Israeli state.

    Personally I think that the best solution would be to withdraw from Palistine all together. However if it is a choice between a wall and Israel killing civilians then I would choose a wall.
    - withdraw from where?
    - a choice that cannot be made.


    It is worrying because Israel is a democratic country, who are killing innorcent civillians on a regular basis.
    define and substantiate 'regular'. Israel is the sole democratic country surrounded by an extreme and open threat to its existence. Defence of this existence is its right. I find it worrying that people judge Israel by standards that are not then equally applied to neighbouring countries. Neighbouring countries/peoples that are actually killing innocent civilians on a regular basis.

    There is a difference between a terrorist group and a government, the Palistinian attacks are condemed by the govenment and the Israeli attacks are carried out by the government. I understand that Israel have to protect their people I just don't think that they are going about it the right way.
    perhaps you could suggest how you defend yourself against several nuclear arsenals, thousands of fanatics willing to send their children, wives, brothers, sisters to blow up innocent people, and a continent that funds the same man who also controls the financial resource of such groups.

    - talks at the UN?
    - just sustain the attacks?
    - disarm yourself?
    - abandon the Israeli state?

    If they didn't go and attack palistine after every suicide bomb then the peace talks may progress.

    that statement is rather empty since i can simply say, if the terrorists didnt attack the Israeli state there would be no need to terminate the terrorist threat and then peace talks may progress. Whatsmore a few details,

    i) Palestine does not exist as a state ii) Israel and/or the US have initiated peace talks since the 60s iii) Israel has offered the Palestinian people land on two occasions, twice refused iv) Israel withdraw its military presence from the disputed territories as a commitment to the Road Map for peace. the PA made no attempt to bring terrorism under control v) Israel committed itself to the subsequent peace talks, the PA funded a terrorist attack on Israel that ended those talks vi) Israel offered its full cooperation to two successive Prime Ministers, the Palestinians threatened them both with assasination vii) Israel offered to withdraw from the disputed territories in exchange for an end to the terrorist attacks. the PA refused.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nik P)
    Ha, let them build their wall, BUT ON THEIR OWN LAND...

    Israel has no legal claim to the land, just some religious references... Historically they were forced to move, but why should they get it back in the year 2004 AD?.... Give North America back to the Indians.

    If the state of Israel is ever formed (completley), then i for one would support the forced deportation of all zionists and zionist appologists to the "promised land"...
    No! Send the American Indians back to Siberia where they bloody belong!

    Honestly, all this who is the rightful owner of which parcel of land gets a bit daft if we start to think in these terms. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nik P)
    Israel has no legal claim to the land, just some religious references... Historically they were forced to move, but why should they get it back in the year 2004 AD?.... Give North America back to the Indians.

    If the state of Israel is ever formed (completley), then i for one would support the forced deportation of all zionists and zionist appologists to the "promised land"...
    - The State of Israel exists, is recognised, is democratic whatever you wish to think.
    - The State of Israel exists because of the struggles that the Jewish race suffered. The State of Israel is now home to Israeli Jews, Christians and Muslims, all threatened as Israeli citizens, all victims of terrorist bombs, all protected and represent as citizens of one nationality, by the democratic Israeli state. The only other people to share your anti-semitism blew themselves up on that bus today.


    "The PA has no legal claim to the land, just some historic references... Historically they were forced to move, but why should they get it back in the year 2004 AD?.... Give North America back to the Indians.

    If a state of Palestine is ever formed. IF..."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    the terrorists attack indiscriminately irrespective of Israeli operations. The Israelis continued with their counter-terrorist measures despite months without a suicide bomb. the Palestinian terrorists have an open ideological hatred for the state of Israel, there goal is to destroy it. The Israelis want to end the terrorist threat, or at the least continually protect its people. Neither would suggest it is a tit-for-tat conflict, no matter how much spin is put on it.

    The terrorist groups in the disputed territories all have one common aim: the destruction of an Israeli state. They are also manifestations of one and the same larger group, sharing material resource, hierarachal direction and financial support. The Israeli state has one goal: to protect its people from terror.
    You dont protect people by acting AFTER they have been attacked and murdered. The war against terrorism is pre-emptive, pre-emptive against terrorist groups that threaten the Israeli state.
    No they don't. As explained earlier the Hamas position was clearly outlined by Yassin. The position of Fatah - accepting Israels right to exist in its pre-1967 borders - was made plain in 1988.

    You argue that Israel has one aim, let me put to you that it has another. After the first gulf war, George Bush Snr pushed Israel into negotiations culminating in the agreement to launch the Oslo peace accords. The Israeli rights view of the accords was made perfectly public, Yitzak Shamir, then Israeli PM argued publicly that Israel should pursue a policy of procrastination in peace talks aimed at making them go nowhere, so the Palestinians would eventually give up on peace talks and launch another intifada - unfortunately he was right, although the second proved to be much more bloody for Israeli civilians that the first.

    Unfortunately, despite the Rabin era (the Israeli left truly supported peace and still does), peace talks dragged on and Netanyahu was elected in 1996. Like Shamir (and Sharon in the past, disputably now), he disagreed with the concept of a Palestinian state, and pursued a settlement policy aimed at de-railing peace. Many of the most controversial settlements were built or expanded during his era (Hebron for example), with around half of Israels settlements built during the Oslo Accords, many of them during Netanyahus era. Such settlements seemed to have a clear aim to stop the viability of a Palestinian state - unfortunately the fact that Barak felt able to only often the Palestinians 91% of the West Bank is illustrative of its effectiveness, when Arafat rightly refused this patronising offer, he was blamed by Clinton and Barak for the collapse of the talks. Arguably he may have been a poor negotiator, but ultimate responsibility lie with Netanyahu who made peace impossible and Barak who was unwilling to undo his dirty work.

    Sharon has largely continued where Shamir and Netanyahu left off. During Sharons era, settlement expansion has continued (despite the Road-map under which Israel was obliged to freeze all settlement building), indeed Sharon seems to have added a third tactic (to procrastinisation and settlements) to preventing the creation of a viable Palestinian state. Military force destroying the infrastructure of the PA (not just Arafats HQ before you argue that these were anti-terrorism operations) aimed at undermining what is supposed to the Palestinian state in waiting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imagashead)
    No they don't. As explained earlier the Hamas position was clearly outlined by Yassin. The position of Fatah - accepting Israels right to exist in its pre-1967 borders - was made plain in 1988.
    i would suggest that is rather naive. to suggest it is clearly outlined by Hamas is bordering on the ludicrous. Hamas considers Israel as such.

    Article 7 of the Hamas Covenant: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: "O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him."

    "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

    "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

    "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

    and Hamas' position on Yassin's death? "War, war, war on the sons of Zion"

    You argue that Israel has one aim, let me put to you that it has another. After the first gulf war, George Bush Snr pushed Israel
    is that credit youre affording the americans?

    into negotiations culminating in the agreement to launch the Oslo peace accords. The Israeli rights view of the accords was made perfectly public, Yitzak Shamir, then Israeli PM argued publicly that Israel should pursue a policy of procrastination in peace talks aimed at making them go nowhere, so the Palestinians would eventually give up on peace talks and launch another intifada - unfortunately he was right, although the second proved to be much more bloody for Israeli civilians that the first.
    Yitzhak Rabin was the PM, who agreed terms with Arafat as a result of the Oslo peace talks, not Shamir. As such, I totally reject this assessment.

    bearing in mind the Palestinians had no interest in a 2-state region at the time of the Oslo talks, peace talks were essentially and succesfully a matter of recognising the Israeli state and recognising a Palestinian Authority respectively.

    Unfortunately, despite the Rabin era (the Israeli left truly supported peace and still does), peace talks dragged on and Netanyahu was elected in 1996. Like Shamir (and Sharon in the past, disputably now), he disagreed with the concept of a Palestinian state, and pursued a settlement policy aimed at de-railing peace. Many of the most controversial settlements were built or expanded during his era (Hebron for example), with around half of Israels settlements built during the Oslo Accords, many of them during Netanyahus era. Such settlements seemed to have a clear aim to stop the viability of a Palestinian state
    Before and during the Oslo accords the Palestinians had no intention of cooperating with Israel to create a Palestinian state! You cant ultimately blame the Israelis for refusing a solution that never existed.

    - unfortunately the fact that Barak felt able to only often the Palestinians 91% of the West Bank is illustrative of its effectiveness, when Arafat rightly refused this patronising offer,
    91% more than the Palestinians ever had legal right to.

    he was blamed by Clinton and Barak for the collapse of the talks. Arguably he may have been a poor negotiator,


    During Sharons era, settlement expansion has continued (despite the Road-map under which Israel was obliged to freeze all settlement building), indeed Sharon seems to have added a third tactic (to procrastinisation and settlements) to preventing the creation of a viable Palestinian state.
    Again, you make no mention of the context of terrorist attacks, of the security threat of the political efforts being made by the PA. Criticising Sharon is all very well if you actually afford him the correct and balanced historical context. Sharon entered into US-led peace talks whole heartedly. Peace talks that recognised 2 states, the creation of a Palestinian state. The PA refused to end terrorist attacks against Israel, so quite rightly Israel gave up its end of bargain that never existed!

    Military force destroying the infrastructure of the PA (not just Arafats HQ before you argue that these were anti-terrorism operations) aimed at undermining what is supposed to the Palestinian state in waiting.
    tell us what and who is the infrastructure of the PA? and what part of it Israel is meant to have destroyed. I will argue they are anti-terrorist operations, based on the finance and coordination offered by the PA to Palestinian terror groups, and until you prove otherwise. Israel and the US tried to work with two Palestinian Prime Ministers, the PA made that an impossibility.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i would suggest that is rather naive. to suggest it is clearly outlined by Hamas is bordering on the ludicrous. Hamas considers Israel as such.
    Hmm.. Yes on second thought I woud accept that Hamas' position is not clearly outlined, instead more accurately some members of Hamas take more extreme positions that others, illustrated by their constant dithering over cease-fire agreements since the outbreak of the intifada. On the other hand your assertion with equally strong language as myn that Hamas has one aim, the destruction of Israel, is equally naive, bearing in mind Yassins public pronouncements.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    Article 7 of the Hamas Covenant: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: "O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him."

    "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

    "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

    "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

    and Hamas' position on Yassin's death? "War, war, war on the sons of Zion"
    All true, you may have added that Islamic Jihad have made similar such statements, my point is that Hamas have shown signs in the past, of being willing to negotiate, to generalise Hamas as a organisation solely aimed at the destruction of Israel is wrong. Instead their is, fortunately, scope for negotiation, on this basis, I believe that Israel should make every effort to negotiate, I have already outlined the reasons why I believe that Israel has not.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    is that credit youre affording the americans?
    Of course, I only wish that Jnr would follow in the steps of Snr. Indeed, often such events as the Snr push for peace in the 1990's and the 1970's peace deal between Israel and Egypt following the Yom Kippur war, which came largely as a result of American pressure on both nations (as well as promises of financial aid for both) are crucial omissions which disprove the often made argument that 'America supports everything Israel does, because its Israel'.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    Yitzhak Rabin was the PM, who agreed terms with Arafat as a result of the Oslo peace talks, not Shamir. As such, I totally reject this assessment.
    Shamir was PM at the Madrid Peace Conference, which led to the ceasefires which ultimately created the Oslo Peace Accords, and he argued for this tactic and that the time. He only went to the conference as a result of American pressure.

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...hy/shamir.html

    True Rabin become PM once the talks were launched, and certainly did not have the 'anti-peace' agenda that Shamir had. I was using this example to illustrate that is has been an open policy of the Israeli right to procrastinate in peace negotiations to cause them to fail, in my view this policy has been continued by Netanyahu and Sharon, but of course not by Rabin or Barak, both of whome have attacked the Israeli right for being so cynical about how negotiations could be used. I fail to see how the election of a left-wing PM, Rabin, makes my assessment that the Israeli right has since Shamir (and followed through by Netanyahu and Sharon) pursued policies aimed at undermining peace. My point was that Israel (when right-wing governments have been in power) has had more than the single aim, security, you outlined and instead has often pursued policies, procrastinisation in negotiations, settlements and now forceable destruction of PA institutions aimed at undermining it.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    bearing in mind the Palestinians had no interest in a 2-state region at the time of the Oslo talks, peace talks were essentially and succesfully a matter of recognising the Israeli state and recognising a Palestinian Authority respectively.
    In your view not myn. When one bears in mind the 1988 declaration by the PLO that it accepted the existence of the Jewish state, its only aim has been the two-state solution, to argue otherwise is to argue against the weight of historical evidence. Why then did the Israeli right discuss so much about how to undermine the two-state solution if it did not believe their was a real possibility the Palestinians would accept it?

    (Original post by vienna95)
    Before and during the Oslo accords the Palestinians had no intention of cooperating with Israel to create a Palestinian state! You cant ultimately blame the Israelis for refusing a solution that never existed.
    True, the Palestinians were often far from fully co-operative and helpful, however neither was Israel - the settlements and the very slow pace of transfer of security to PA under Netanyahu, even in areas such as Hebron which are undistably Palestinian on the basis of self-determination. My point is that Israel deserves to be criticised for its moves aimed at de-railing peace as much as the Palestinians do (terrorism and the PAs failure to do enough about it). I blame Israel for not doing enough to create the conditions for peace, I also blame the Israeli right for pursuing policies aimed at de-railing peace, this is one reason (the other being failures on the Palestinian side) that peace has prooved elusive and thus the reason why the final solution hasn't yet existed, for Israel to reject.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    91% more than the Palestinians ever had legal right to.
    I'm honestly saddened that you feel that.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    Sharon entered into US-led peace talks whole heartedly. Peace talks that recognised 2 states, the creation of a Palestinian state. The PA refused to end terrorist attacks against Israel, so quite rightly Israel gave up its end of bargain that never existed!
    This argument can be reversed. The PA also entered the US-led Roadmap for peace. It to thus recognised 2 states, the creation of a Palestinian one alongside an Israeli one. True the PA did very little to end terror attacks, but Sharon did very little to end settlement building, both of which were required by the Roadmap. It collapsed because both sides ignored the promises they made under the deal not just because the Palestinians did.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    tell us what and who is the infrastructure of the PA? and what part of it Israel is meant to have destroyed. I will argue they are anti-terrorist operations, based on the finance and coordination offered by the PA to Palestinian terror groups, and until you prove otherwise. Israel and the US tried to work with two Palestinian Prime Ministers, the PA made that an impossibility.
    Israel destroyed much of the PA government building in Ramallah on the weekend of the 21/22 of September 2002. Even George Bush disagreed with this he told reporters on September 24th that Israel's destruction at the weekend of all but one of Yasser Arafat's government buildings in Ramallah had been “not helpful”.

    http://www.economist.com/research/ar...bjectid=348984

    That said I'd agree with you that the PA certainly made it difficult for Israel and the US to work with with the new PMs a very sad development, Arafat should step-aside and along a new PM to work with the Israelis and Americans for the sake of peace and the Palestinian people, the fact he fails do so (and instead only goes through the charade of reform then undermines the PM) is bad for peace and bad for Palestinians and Israelis.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by giordano)
    I recall from previous posts that Vienna was strongly in favour of the wall; but perhaps I am wrong
    It isnt finished yet :rolleyes: they have only bulit a 1/3
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nik P)
    Ha, let them build their wall, BUT ON THEIR OWN LAND...
    So you propose they just leave every Jew living in the westbank / Gaza to be lynched by palestinian militants? If they are to forcefully move these people they will have to have an agreed borderline before doing so, but Israel and the PLO doesnt agree on the borders, thats the very problem. Had they agreed which land was "their own land" then they would nto have had to build the fence in the first place. The fence is there as temporary protection until a mutually agreed peace agreement is achieved. All Israeli officials have clearly stated that this barrier can be moved as soon as a negotiated agreement has been met. Unfortunately the palestinians has rejected every such proposal to an agreement because the PA will never accept Israel's right to exist. Thebarrier is not an ideal solution, but it is better than having the entire westbank under curfew until the two can agree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imagashead)
    On the other hand your assertion with equally strong language as myn that Hamas has one aim, the destruction of Israel, is equally naive, bearing in mind Yassins public pronouncements.
    Selective pronouncements made in 1988. Times have changed. Yassin does not exist for a start. In spite of that, the written covenant of Hamas exists in black and white and should be considered more indicative of their aims than the mixed signals from its now expired leader.

    Of course, I only wish that Jnr would follow in the steps of Snr.
    George W. Bush is the only President to openly support a 2-state region.

    In your view not myn. When one bears in mind the 1988 declaration by the PLO that it accepted the existence of the Jewish state
    Is this Yassin again?

    its only aim has been the two-state solution, to argue otherwise is to argue against the weight of historical evidence. Why then did the Israeli right discuss so much about how to undermine the two-state solution if it did not believe their was a real possibility the Palestinians would accept it?
    Since the two-state solution was believed to be a Palestinian smoke screen(the Palestinians have consistently used the Intl. Arena to gain leverage against the Israelis, the UN being the primary tool), Israel saw this as nothing but an empty suggestion and were not going to blindly sign up to the first compromise based on notions of 'peace' and 'agreement'. This is not the same as not wanting peace, and not wanting to acheive a two-state solution.

    My point is that Israel deserves to be criticised for its moves aimed at de-railing peace as much as the Palestinians do (terrorism and the PAs failure to do enough about it).
    are you know equating sustained and murderous terrorist acts with a lack of diplomatic effort?

    I blame Israel for not doing enough to create the conditions for peace, I also blame the Israeli right for pursuing policies aimed at de-railing peace,
    I think you should define these or demonstrate them.


    I'm honestly saddened that you feel that.
    The Palestinians have never had sovereign control over any land in the West Bank.

    This argument can be reversed. The PA also entered the US-led Roadmap for peace.
    To enter into the roadmap you have to agree to the terms it sets out. The Israelis agreed to recognise and respect a Palestinian state. The Palestinians did not intend to end all terrorist attacks against the State of Israel.

    True the PA did very little to end terror attacks, but Sharon did very little to end settlement building, both of which were required by the Roadmap. It collapsed because both sides ignored the promises they made under the deal not just because the Palestinians did.
    Sharon promised to respect a Palestinian state. The Palestinians did not promise to end terrorism against the State of Israel! If I promise to give you a loaf of bread, but you cant promise to give me money in exchange, then I keep the loaf of bread! The PA couldnt make any promises! As such the deal became null and void and the Israeli state continued with operations to protect its population and retain the land on which Israeli villages and towns were settled.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Build a bigger wall for them to break down! Then both sides win....one stops bombs in Israel while the other gets to use their bombs on a wall.....

    Why don’t they just put all the terrorists in walled state and bomb 'em all??????
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    The fact is that it is a bitter cycle and until one side stops the violence it nothing will improove. Israel don't always take out the specific group of terrorists responsible sometimes it is any group responsible or not. Untill one of the side doesn't retaliate nothing will happen. Both sides kill innorcent civillians regually the worrying thing is that one side is the govenment of a country.
    But how can one side stop the violence? The Palistinians won't be happy until Israel is destroyed, and if Israel stops reacting to terror attacks, they are inviting more upon themselves.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 11, 2004
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

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.