Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    God, you really love your straw men don't you?

    His views on gay marriage or abortion, say, may not be held by the majority of the country. But the proportion who do agree or at least have sympathy is far from insignificant.

    On issues like immigration, sovereignty, the EU, et cetera, I'd say he's more in tune with the country than most MPs.
    He opposes the EU for right wing reasons. Not because people have been left behind, as many who were persuaded by the leave campaign were. Much of the north opposed the EU for anti-globalisation and anti-free market capitalist reasons. Ideologies which Mogg subscribes to.

    On immigration, his stance is no different to his party's. As for soverignty? Where was his opposition to the power grab bill by the tories, giving power to the executive rather then Parliament?


    Give me some specifics, what do you think Rees Mogg would change socially that would be so wonderful? What are these social reforms he would make that the public is yearning for?

    You accept that Mogg is a free-market capitalist and you accept that it has been the dominant ideology for decades, yet then bizarrely you claim Mogg is sticking it to the establishment/elites.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    My opinion on this is based on how he went to the Rust Belt states, areas which have been left behind by globalisation and told business owners that if they moved their jobs and factories to Mexico, that he'd slap a 35% tariff on any imports back into the USA. To people who've seen their jobs go and states turned into barren lands, this was music to their ears.

    There was also a program on a while back with Sanders and Trump voters and quite a few of them said that they would have voted for Sanders if he stood. Sure, Trump's hardline law and order and even outright sexism/bigotry appealed to some. However, a lot of his voters were not racist/sexist/bigoted, they were attracted by his economic populism.

    That's just my opinion of course, but I think he won the left behind rust belt states because of economic populism, rather than law and order.




    It wouldn't. Young professionals and graduates (the class which Tories need to do much better with) support foreign aid in general. They don't want to see a reduction in it.

    Foreign aid is becoming the new 'EU' to the hard right. Just blame all our problems on it. The money we spend on foreign aid is pittance compared to what we need to spend on house-building.

    They're not Tories though. Many people in the north were very avid Brexiteers but they'd rather boil in oil than vote for the Tories.

    Economic populism will resonate more with these people than nationalism.
    There’s a very fine line between the two. Protectionism of any sort (includeing cutting immigration) is basically nationalistic. Both probably contributed to Trump winning.

    The best way of distinguishing Blue and Red labour is perhaps through opppsing notions of fairness and equality. For instance, to plenty of ‘blue’ or traditional labour voters benefits have been paid in through generations and being handed out to new arrivals isn’t fair whereas red or cosmopolitan labour people think that such distinctions do not matter as people should be treated equally.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    He opposes the EU for right wing reasons. Not because people have been left behind, as many who were persuaded by the leave campaign were. Much of the north opposed the EU for anti-globalisation and anti-free market capitalist reasons. Ideologies which Mogg subscribes to.

    On immigration, his stance is no different to his party's. As for soverignty? Where was his opposition to the power grab bill by the tories, giving power to the executive rather then Parliament?

    Give me some specifics, what do you think Rees Mogg would change socially that would be so wonderful? What are these social reforms he would make that the public is yearning for?

    You accept that Mogg is a free-market capitalist and you accept that it has been the dominant ideology for decades, yet then bizarrely you claim Mogg is sticking it to the establishment/elites.
    You seem to be under the illusion that I have, at any point, said that Jacob Rees-Mogg is our saviour and all across the land the people are crying out his name.

    All I've said is that people on this forum are using 'out of touch' as a shorthand for 'I do not agree with this person and it makes me more comfortable to think no one else does either', when actually a good number of people across the country do.

    It is absolutely inarguable that Rees-Mogg holds certain opinions which are anathema in polite circles, but on which a good proportion of the country agrees with him. This does not mean on every issue he is in the majority, and people who agree with him on an issue may disagree on another, but the idea that he is so much more 'out of touch' than the rest of our politicians if facile. I don't think people expect to agree with any politician on every issue, but people do seem to like that at least Rees-Mogg speaks his mind, as opposed to the self-serving, patronising cant which passes for normal political discourse.

    However, I will give you one example: abortion. While most people wouldn't want to ban abortion, a good majority would like to see the time limit reduced substantially. Jacob Rees-Mogg's position that, though he wouldn't ban abortion, he finds it to be immoral was portrayed as beyond the pale in a way it simply isn't.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    You seem to be under the illusion that I have, at any point, said that Jacob Rees-Mogg is our saviour and all across the land the people are crying out his name.

    All I've said is that people on this forum are using 'out of touch' as a shorthand for 'I do not agree with this person and it makes me more comfortable to think no one else does either', when actually a good number of people across the country do.

    It is absolutely inarguable that Rees-Mogg holds certain opinions which are anathema in polite circles, but on which a good proportion of the country agrees with him. This does not mean on every issue he is in the majority, and people who agree with him on an issue may disagree on another, but the idea that he is so much more 'out of touch' than the rest of our politicians if facile. I don't think people expect to agree with any politician on every issue, but people do seem to like that at least Rees-Mogg speaks his mind, as opposed to the self-serving, patronising cant which passes for normal political discourse.

    However, I will give you one example: abortion. While most people wouldn't want to ban abortion, a good majority would like to see the time limit reduced substantially. Jacob Rees-Mogg's position that, though he wouldn't ban abortion, he finds it to be immoral was portrayed as beyond the pale in a way it simply isn't.
    When discussing if a politician is out of tough, their background and backstory can be relevant. If a person was born into wealth, went to Eton, went to Oxbridge and then worked for an Investment bank before becoming an MP for one of the wealthiest constituencies in the country, it is rather unlikely that he has been surrounded by anything other than wealth.

    Does he know what it's like for people who do struggle? Has he ever been in the situation where he couldn't be sure of having enough food to feed his family? Does he know what it's like to live in private rented accommodation or to have your wages stagnate as the cost of living rises and rises?

    And you can tell by what he says, that he has no idea. How he's voted through cuts to tax credits and benefits which people rely on to live. How he's argued consistently for lower spending on public services which are of upmost importance to much of the population. How he's keen to tell people of the same sex that he doesn't think they should be allowed to get married or to a woman who's been raped, that she should have to give birth. Of course he is entitled to such views, but they hardly make him in touch.

    None of that strikes me as a politician in touch. Yes he was on the same side as many regarding the EU, but as mentioned, for very different reasons. And this whole support about people swooning over someone for 'speaking their mind' is rather selective. I take it you must really like and respect Corbyn too? After all he speaks his mind. Caroline Lucas too, she speaks her mind. Or does it not count if the person who so wonderfully speaks their mind, is of the wrong stripes?


    Do the population at large want much stricter limits on abortions? Where is your evidence for this?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    When discussing if a politician is out of tough, their background and backstory can be relevant. If a person was born into wealth, went to Eton, went to Oxbridge and then worked for an Investment bank before becoming an MP for one of the wealthiest constituencies in the country, it is rather unlikely that he has been surrounded by anything other than wealth.

    Does he know what it's like for people who do struggle? Has he ever been in the situation where he couldn't be sure of having enough food to feed his family? Does he know what it's like to live in private rented accommodation or to have your wages stagnate as the cost of living rises and rises?

    And you can tell by what he says, that he has no idea. How he's voted through cuts to tax credits and benefits which people rely on to live. How he's argued consistently for lower spending on public services which are of upmost importance to much of the population. How he's keen to tell people of the same sex that he doesn't think they should be allowed to get married or to a woman who's been raped, that she should have to give birth. Of course he is entitled to such views, but they hardly make him in touch.

    None of that strikes me as a politician in touch. Yes he was on the same side as many regarding the EU, but as mentioned, for very different reasons. And this whole support about people swooning over someone for 'speaking their mind' is rather selective. I take it you must really like and respect Corbyn too? After all he speaks his mind. Caroline Lucas too, she speaks her mind. Or does it not count if the person who so wonderfully speaks their mind, is of the wrong stripes?


    Do the population at large want much stricter limits on abortions? Where is your evidence for this?
    Whether someone 'strikes you as out of touch' is an absolute irrelevance. He is obviously not one of the common people, but that is not sufficient to ignore his views, some of which are commonplace.

    I don't think I have ever claimed there aren't any left wingers who do speak their mind, so I'm not sure what I'm being selective about... On the other hand, does Corbyn speak his mind? We know he has opposed the EU, we know he has supported Irish unification, we know he has supported the abolition of the monarchy, we know he has opposed the state of Israel, and we have seen him subsequently deny all of those positions.

    Also, polling on this moves around a lot but:
    http://www.comresglobal.com/polls/wh...ortion-survey/
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    He’s in the fairly exclusive ‘would not piss on if they were on fire’ club of Tories for me. He’s morally bankrupt.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wattsy)
    He’s in the fairly exclusive ‘would not piss on if they were on fire’ club of Tories for me. He’s morally bankrupt.
    No, he holds a rather strict morality. You may not agree with a Christian world-view, but he's hardly bankrupt in that department.

    By contrast, is watching someone burn without helping a moral act, in your opinion?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    Whether someone 'strikes you as out of touch' is an absolute irrelevance. He is obviously not one of the common people, but that is not sufficient to ignore his views, some of which are commonplace.

    I don't think I have ever claimed there aren't any left wingers who do speak their mind, so I'm not sure what I'm being selective about... On the other hand, does Corbyn speak his mind? We know he has opposed the EU, we know he has supported Irish unification, we know he has supported the abolition of the monarchy, we know he has opposed the state of Israel, and we have seen him subsequently deny all of those positions.

    Also, polling on this moves around a lot but:
    http://www.comresglobal.com/polls/wh...ortion-survey/
    Almost any politician will have some views that resonate with a majority of people.

    I don't think Corbyn's positions have shifted on many of those. He's always been sceptical of the EU, but believed on balance, reluctantly that we were better off in. He's never pretended to be a big supporter of the current state of Israel. He has never claimed that he is now a monarchist or that he wished there was one, just that he wasn't going to do anything about it were he elected.

    A common thing people seem to like about JRM is 'he speaks his mind', as if that were more important than what you are actually speaking about. The amount of times i've seen those on the right go 'I don't agree with him on this but i like that he speaks his mind'.

    Yet when Corbyn for example says honestly that he thinks we should scrap trident, they don't go 'ah well I don't agree with him but I like that he speaks his mind'. Rather they accuse him of being a terrorist sympathiser who hates Britain. They don't seem to respect someone on the left 'speaking their mind'.

    What is your overall point anyway? That JRM should be Tory leader and PM because he 'speaks his mind'?
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Of course its relevant to being out of touch. How can someone who's never encountered or surrounded himself with anything other than wealth or riches, know what it's like to be without?

    I don't think his positions have shifted on many of those. He's always been sceptical of the EU, but believed on balance, reluctantly that we were better off in. He's never pretended to be a big supporter of the current state of Israel. He has never claimed that he is now a monarchist or that he wished there was one, just that he wasn't going to do anything about it were he elected.

    A common thing people seem to like about JRM is 'he speaks his mind', as if that were more important than what you are actually speaking about. The amount of times i've seen those on the right go 'I don't agree with him on this but i like that he speaks his mind'.

    Yet when Corbyn for example says honestly that he thinks we should scrap trident, they don't go 'ah well I don't agree with him but I like that he speaks his mind'. Rather they accuse him of being a terrorist sympathiser who hates Britain. They don't seem to respect someone on the left 'speaking their mind'.

    What is your overall point anyway? That JRM should be Tory leader and PM because he 'speaks his mind'?
    Tbh I've always said about corbyn that while I hate his policies, I do respect his honesty and principles.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bones-mccoy)
    I don't know why I'm still wasting my time replying to you but I am nowhere near narrow minded, thanks
    Of course you say that. Think that. Who admits to being narrow minded, even to themselves?

    This is hardly complicated stuff. No-one has to agree with you (or me, or anyone else) on everything, and if they don't it doesn't make them a piece of sh it.

    Who earth are you to think you know all the answers?? To judge others?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Almost any politician will have some views that resonate with a majority of people.

    I don't think Corbyn's positions have shifted on many of those. He's always been sceptical of the EU, but believed on balance, reluctantly that we were better off in. He's never pretended to be a big supporter of the current state of Israel. He has never claimed that he is now a monarchist or that he wished there was one, just that he wasn't going to do anything about it were he elected.

    A common thing people seem to like about JRM is 'he speaks his mind', as if that were more important than what you are actually speaking about. The amount of times i've seen those on the right go 'I don't agree with him on this but i like that he speaks his mind'.

    Yet when Corbyn for example says honestly that he thinks we should scrap trident, they don't go 'ah well I don't agree with him but I like that he speaks his mind'. Rather they accuse him of being a terrorist sympathiser who hates Britain. They don't seem to respect someone on the left 'speaking their mind'.

    What is your overall point anyway? That JRM should be Tory leader and PM because he 'speaks his mind'?
    I've explained my overall point several times. People keep saying things like "he's out of touch", largely because he has a plummy accent and says things they dislike. There have always been Labour politicians who are just as posh, by the way, but they do not get this allegation thrown at them. But, he has had cut-through because there is a decently-sized constituency in the country which likes many of the things he says, and because he comes across as sincere.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    I've explained my overall point several times. People keep saying things like "he's out of touch", largely because he has a plummy accent and says things they dislike. There have always been Labour politicians who are just as posh, by the way, but they do not get this allegation thrown at them. But, he has had cut-through because there is a decently-sized constituency in the country which likes many of the things he says, and because he comes across as sincere.
    Someone's background and backstory can clearly make someone out of touch though, especially if their actions as a politician serve almost exclusively to preserve the wealth and status of those at the top. Atlee was just as posh, yet he created the welfare state. I don't think he's that much more out of touch than say, Cameron, if that helps.

    I don't think he has cut through. He's just attracting the support of lots of desperate Tory members and those on the right already. Rather than supporting social liberalism, bizarrely a group of Tories have a yearning for some good-old fashioned social conservatism.

    Again, Corbyn is sincere, so why do you and other tories not like and respect his sincerity? Why is 'sincerity' only a good thing if it comes from the right?

    Do you want JRM to be Prime Minister?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Someone's background and backstory can clearly make someone out of touch though, especially if their actions as a politician serve almost exclusively to preserve the wealth and status of those at the top. Atlee was just as push, yet he created the welfare state. I don't think he's that much more out of touch than say, Cameron, if that helps.

    I don't think he has cut through. He's just attracting the support of lots of desperate Tory members and those on the right already. Rather than supporting social liberalism, bizarrely a group of Tories have a yearning for some good-old fashioned social conservatism.

    Again, Corbyn is sincere, so why do you and other tories not like and respect his sincerity? Why is 'sincerity' only a good thing if it comes from the right?

    Do you want JRM to be Prime Minister?
    I've sort of let these points from you fly because I regarded them as tangential to the main point, but can you disavow yourself of your lefty fantasy that Conservative politicians go into politics to screw the poor and maintain their own wealth. It is a perfectly reasonable position to hold (and not without evidence) that right-wing, free-market economics is to the benefit of the poor as much as the rich.

    Secondly, I let your Corbyn comments fly because they are also pretty tangential, but he is a man who repeatedly, on the record, called for the UK to leave the EU. He and McDonnell were best mates with Dennis Skinner (Vote Leave) and fully paid up members of the Tony Benn fan club, one of Britain's strongest eurosceptics. It is widely accepted in the parliamentary Labour party that he has recanted only out of political expediency. The main reason for the Owen Smith attempted coup was because some felt he'd acted like a Vote Leave sleeper agent!

    Finally, as a man who supported the IRA's armed struggle in Northern Ireland, who has given succour to terrorist groups in Palestine, who was a supporter of the Soviet Union (the world's most murderous regime) and who has completely failed to deal with the antisemitism in the Labour party which his rule ushered in, I believe him to be a man without moral compunction.

    Personally, Rees-Mogg would not be my first choice for PM, but neither would he be my last. I'd have him over May any day of the week.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    I've sort of let these points from you fly because I regarded them as tangential to the main point, but can you disavow yourself of your lefty fantasy that Conservative politicians go into politics to screw the poor and maintain their own wealth. It is a perfectly reasonable position to hold (and not without evidence) that right-wing, free-market economics is to the benefit of the poor as much as the rich.
    Can you disavow yourself of your right wing fantasy that cutting people's benefits, and tax credits helps get them out of poverty? Can you stop pretending that the rise in use of food banks in the UK isn't a non-issue?

    Does cutting a lowly paid person's tax credits, that they use to live on, make them better off?

    Secondly, I let your Corbyn comments fly because they are also pretty tangential, but he is a man who repeatedly, on the record, called for the UK to leave the EU. He and McDonnell were best mates with Dennis Skinner (Vote Leave) and fully paid up members of the Tony Benn fan club, one of Britain's strongest eurosceptics. It is widely accepted in the parliamentary Labour party that he has recanted only out of political expediency. The main reason for the Owen Smith attempted coup was because some felt he'd acted like a Vote Leave sleeper agent!
    The EU has quite clearly changed from inception. It became less of the 'capitalists club' (though still strongly had elements of it) and did some good things on worker rights and the environment. Begrudging remain probably did reflect his position in the end.

    He didn't campaign hard on it because he wasn't that enthusiastic about it.

    Finally, as a man who supported the IRA's armed struggle in Northern Ireland, who has given succour to terrorist groups in Palestine, who was a supporter of the Soviet Union (the world's most murderous regime) and who has completely failed to deal with the antisemitism in the Labour party which his rule ushered in, I believe him to be a man without moral compunction.
    Oh come on...
    It's rather strange that you moan about people going OTT and scaremongering about JRM and then you unleash this BS about Corbyn. Again the Tories seem to have no answer to any of his actual policies and have instead gone for the 'he's a terrorist sympathiser' approach.

    Corbyn is most certainly sincere and honest about his views, however much you may disagree with them. So if sincerity impresses you, why are you not impressed by him?


    Personally, Rees-Mogg would not be my first choice for PM, but neither would he be my last. I'd have him over May any day of the week.
    How does he actually differ from May policy wise? What policies would he introduce that May hasn't? Or that Cameron didn't? Be specific.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charliertn)
    Hi there!

    What I would like to know is the student youth's opinion about JRM, and if you think he would be suitable for the top spot in parliament as PM. Feel free to discuss policies, his own views etc. Thanks!
    Great Man
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Can anyone who supports him or wants him to be Tory leader please detail they types of policies they think he would introduce that would be so different to either Cameron or May?

    Please. Because he seems to be more style over substance. What would he do so differently?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Can you disavow yourself of your right wing fantasy that cutting people's benefits, and tax credits helps get them out of poverty? Can you stop pretending that the rise in use of food banks in the UK isn't a non-issue?

    Does cutting a lowly paid person's tax credits, that they use to live on, make them better off?
    The difference here is that you're putting words in my mouth and assuming my position on various items, where as I was accurately reflecting what you actually said.

    The EU has quite clearly changed from inception. It became less of the 'capitalists club' (though still strongly had elements of it) and did some good things on worker rights and the environment. Begrudging remain probably did reflect his position in the end.

    He didn't campaign hard on it because he wasn't that enthusiastic about it.
    There is debate on this issue, and as neither of us can see inside his head we can never really resolve it. But he supported leave only a few years ago, and there are definitely centrist Labour MPs who believe he actively sabotaged the remain campaign, whatever the truth of that. In any case, failure to take a clear position on the most important issue of our day is a remarkable position for a political leader.

    Oh come on...
    It's rather strange that you moan about people going OTT and scaremongering about JRM and then you unleash this BS about Corbyn. Again the Tories seem to have no answer to any of his actual policies and have instead gone for the 'he's a terrorist sympathiser' approach.

    Corbyn is most certainly sincere and honest about his views, however much you may disagree with them. So if sincerity impresses you, why are you not impressed by him?
    I mean, he has done all those things...

    And as sincere as his commitment to 'the cause' may be, I've pointed out reasons why I don't believe him to be honest.

    How does he actually differ from May policy wise? What policies would he introduce that May hasn't? Or that Cameron didn't? Be specific.
    He's an actual conservative, in a way Mrs May is not. It's inconceivable to think he'd run the sort of authoritarian, interventionist, Millliband-lite campaign May did at the last election. He's a free marketeer and a genuine leaver, in the fantasy land where he does take charge I would expect his leadership to reflect that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    lol JRM and corbyn are both awful, although I am left wing and so if pushed would still rather corbyn. They are both frankly awful candidates for PM and would probably be more incompetent than Theresa.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    The difference here is that you're putting words in my mouth and assuming my position on various items, where as I was accurately reflecting what you actually said.
    You weren't. I did not say that those on the right set out to screw over poor people. But their actions, such as cutting benefits and tax credits often have that effect.

    I also saw JRM said that it was a great thing that there are food banks because it shows peoples' generosity. That hardly strikes me as being 'in touch'. Any society in which people have to rely on charities to afford to eat, is one which has failed to look after its people. Personally I don't think mothers queuing outside foodbanks for emergency food to have to feed their kids, to be a great thing.


    There is debate on this issue, and as neither of us can see inside his head we can never really resolve it. But he supported leave only a few years ago, and there are definitely centrist Labour MPs who believe he actively sabotaged the remain campaign, whatever the truth of that. In any case, failure to take a clear position on the most important issue of our day is a remarkable position for a political leader.
    Largely because we took an issue with several layers and several parts and expected everyone to take a binary position on it. I was unsure about the EU. There were bits I liked and disliked. I'm guessing Corbyn was the same, Yes he disliked large bits of it, but that doesn't necessarily mean he thought the alternative was better.

    He definitely did not 'actively sabotage' the remain campaign. Accuse him of not campaigning that hard, fine, but that's about it. His position was probably along the lines of 'the EU has several problems and urgently needs reform but on balance we're better off in'.

    I mean, he has done all those things...
    I mean, he hasn't. The political right often complain that the left doesn't let them debate their opinion. Yet if someone on the left criticises free market capitalism, they get called a Marxist/extremist and if they so much as question British foreign policy, they get called a terrorist sympathiser. You can't moan about people not respecting your right to hold an opinion if you try to make out that anyone who holds a different opinion to yourself is bad or dangerous.



    He's an actual conservative, in a way Mrs May is not. It's inconceivable to think he'd run the sort of authoritarian, interventionist, Millliband-lite campaign May did at the last election. He's a free marketeer and a genuine leaver, in the fantasy land where he does take charge I would expect his leadership to reflect that.
    You can't really complain about authoritarianism while yearning for a social conservative who wants to tell people how to live their lives and what they can do with their own bodies and relationships.

    But what actual policies do you expect him to introduce? Cameron was a free marketeer, how would Mogg be different?

    Those who support him seem really vague on what they think or even expect him to actually do were he to become leader.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Largely because we took an issue with several layers and several parts and expected everyone to take a binary position on it. I was unsure about the EU. There were bits I liked and disliked. I'm guessing Corbyn was the same, Yes he disliked large bits of it, but that doesn't necessarily mean he thought the alternative was better.
    There was a Peston on Sunday around this time last year (or before Article 50 was triggered anyway) in which McDonald basically admitted that he supported Brexit but that they could not leave and have a 'Tory' (presumably free market rather than protectionist ect..) Brexit. Corbyn is likely the same.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.