Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crimsonchilli)
    true but because of its Greek ties it makes sense, and secondly considering all the UK sovereign areas within it, from a selfish point of view it makes sense for Britain to support it being in the EU.
    And Britain does. Surprisingly, Greece is a supporter. And why? - better Turkey be inside than out. Well for the love of pink bunnies. Oh, and let's go global. The US is for.

    On the other hand, there's also Austria and France (Sarkozy!). And Germany (economy, trade? Oh my, Germany, Turkey's biggest partner in the mentioned, doesn't want Turkey in the EU!).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CompanyLimited)
    1 - That depends on your definition of 'European'.

    2 - If you're referring to culture, I honestly don't think the Cypriots are particularly more European than the Turks.
    Are you joking ? Most Cypriots are Christians, who speak Cypriotic Greek and go to Greek unis etc etc. Please don't be stupid.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xristina)
    Are you joking ? Most Cypriots are Christians
    So what? Zimbabwe is also a mostly Christian country, though I doubt many regard it as particularly European. Plus, one could argue that Cyprus' conservative Christian culture makes it no less alien to mainstream European culture than Turkey. On issues such as gay rights, women's rights in the workplace, the role of religion in society and etc, Cyprus is much closer to Turkey than it is to the rest of the European Union.

    (Original post by Xristina)
    who speak Cypriotic Greek
    Finland and Hungary speak non-indo-Europeans, so I don't think language is a particularly reliable indicator as to whether a country is European or not.

    (Original post by Xristina)
    and go to Greek unis etc etc.
    So?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CompanyLimited)
    So what? Zimbabwe is also a mostly Christian country, though I doubt many regard it as particularly European. Plus, one could argue that Cyprus' conservative Christian culture makes it no less alien to mainstream European culture than Turkey. On issues such as gay rights, women's rights in the workplace, the role of religion in society and etc, Cyprus is much closer to Turkey than it is to the rest of the European Union.



    Finland and Hungary speak non-indo-Europeans, so I don't think language is a particularly reliable indicator as to whether a country is European or not.



    So?
    so, they are educated in Greece, and absorb the Greek culture. And I don't know what you mean by conservative Christian culture, I know many Cypriots and I can assure you none of them is even the slightest conservative when it comes to gay rights etc, and even thought people are majorly Christians ( like Greeks ), they are not fanatically religious. As to the language, what I mean to say is that Cypriots have MAJOR similarities with Greeks, so it's abit stupid to say that they have more similarities with Turkey than for example Greece, which is a European country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CompanyLimited)
    That's incidental rather than purposeful.
    I beg to differ. Sorry that I'm digging this up, but the discussion is veering this way again, and I remembered this remark. Refers to „EU, Christian Club”.

    Is it really incidental? Incidental it would be if there were three, four, a couple only countries in Europe that are in some way Christian, and they formed a union of their own. And is it that way? No, pardom me if I answer my own question. Look at the European map. How many countries aren't in majority (populace) Christian?

    Christianity is one of the most important factors that formed Europe in history. That made it - „Europe”. Not „Euroasia”. „Europe”.

    I don't have anything against other religions. I'm not even a Christian, not really, and I've lived in e.g. Israel. But that doesn't change how it is. Don't wail about religion, tolerance, because it's repetetive and only to hypocritical discussions about tolernace, how people should be tolerant, etc. Frankly that's bunnies, and boring at that. Europe is Christian in general. Don't throw minorities at me. Minorities are okay. Turkey is also okay. Splendid, be it.

    There's a group of four year olds. A five year old wants in. Four year olds: but you're five! Five year old starts screaming that they're all people, after all.

    Again I stress that religion is not what's keeping Turkey out. For the sake of pink bunnies, it's not. And while listening to opinions regarding religion is entertaining, as is seeing mixed up terms and incorrect assumptions, all are unarticulated assumptions of the above. Which is not what is keeping Turkey out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CompanyLimited)

    Should they also get rid of those retarded Muslims? You know, the bloody idiots who keep on worshipping that dead man?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stettin)
    Anyway back to the main topic. The problem with Turkey isn't the muslims. The Country practically muslim. It's the secularist Elite. Muslims weren't responsible for coups that destabilize the country. THey weren't responsible for the horrors that the country faced. They weren't responsible for enforcing nationalistic laws that jails anyone who attempts to practice free speech. Nor are they the ones who clandestinely kill and torture people.
    And of course Muslims can do no wrong. It’s the secular men who force their wives and cover up, prevent their daughters from going to school, and kill women for the sake of “honour”, isn’t it?
    I also never knew that you had to be part of the “elite” to be secular. Funny that.

    (Original post by Stettin)
    The attacks in the BBC is by nationalist. Clearly not the "Islamists" that the Turkish army fears so much.
    The Turkish nationalist party MHP are both conservative Islamists and proud fascists. It’s MHP scum who commit these fanatical crimes. While I do not approve of nationalism in general, the ordinary Turkish nationalism among the secular population is harmless and entirely different to the MHP religious kind.

    (Original post by Stettin)
    Turks secular or muslim are still conservative.
    You really don’t have a clue. One of Turkey’s most prominent celebrities is a transgender entertainer who goes by the name of Bulent Ersoy. And guess what, all his supporters happen to be of the secular persuasion. Shocker!

    (Original post by Stettin)
    The Turkish people (the nutter secularists at least) worship Ataturk.
    Heh. You’ll find that around over 80% of the population greatly approve of the man, Islamists included, perhaps because of the small fact that there wouldn’t actually be a country called Turkey if it weren’t for Ataturk. No one “worships” Ataturk. Worshipping is left to deluded followers of perverted religions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm all for them joining the EU.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And of course Muslims can do no wrong. It’s the secular men who force their wives and cover up, prevent their daughters from going to school, and kill women for the sake of “honour”, isn’t it?
    I also never knew that you had to be part of the “elite” to be secular. Funny that.
    Funny how little you know. In Turkey the laws are designed to discriminate against women who cover up. If a woman wears Hijab education is denied to her. Also it's against Islam to kill someone because of honour. Honour killing is something that happens culturally in parts of Asia. The oldest woman arrested was a sikh grandmother who planned her daugther in laws murder because she dishonoured her family. I bet you didn't know that did you?

    The Turkish nationalist party MHP are both conservative Islamists and proud fascists. It’s MHP scum who commit these fanatical crimes. While I do not approve of nationalism in general, the ordinary Turkish nationalism among the secular population is harmless and entirely different to the MHP religious kind.
    MHP has reached out to muslims to expand it's base. Two years ago they had no seats in Parliment. Now they have 71.

    Oh and the ordinary nationalism in Turkey is to high to join the EU. Something that needs to be changed.

    You really don’t have a clue. One of Turkey’s most prominent celebrities is a transgender entertainer who goes by the name of Bulent Ersoy. And guess what, all his supporters happen to be of the secular persuasion. Shocker!
    Oh really? Azis is a popular celebrity in Bulgaria. He's a Roma and transvestite. Funny how these two people still suffer discrimination. Even though in Bulgaria it's not offical has it is in Turkey.

    Heh. You’ll find that around over 80% of the population greatly approve of the man, Islamists included, perhaps because of the small fact that there wouldn’t actually be a country called Turkey if it weren’t for Ataturk. No one “worships” Ataturk. Worshipping is left to deluded followers of perverted religions.
    Reply With Quote
    Or maybe they'll be afraid of being sent to jail for not approving of him. That's right. There is a law against that. An another thing that has to be changed. Not only offically but mentally. You can't have a country in the EU where people are shot for arguing something.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stettin)
    In Turkey the laws are designed to discriminate against women who cover up. If a woman wears Hijab education is denied to her.
    In the rest of the Muslim world, women are pressured - either by society and/or the law - to wear the hijab or niqab.

    (Original post by Stettin)
    Also it's against Islam to kill someone because of honour. Honour killing is something that happens culturally in parts of Asia.
    What about the Islamic belief that people who have sexual relations outside marriage must be murdered?

    (Original post by Stettin)
    Or maybe they'll be afraid of being sent to jail for not approving of him. That's right. There is a law against that. An another thing that has to be changed. Not only offically but mentally. You can't have a country in the EU where people are shot for arguing something.
    I agree, the laws that hinder free speech with regard to Ataturk, the army and so on ought to be overturned; however, I can't help but think that you're unfairly picking on Turkish nationalists. What about Turkish Muslims who have zero tolerance for those who critique or mock their beliefs? Should we have such zealots in the EU?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In the rest of the Muslim world, women are pressured - either by society and/or the law - to wear the hijab or niqab.
    First of all we aren't talking about other Non-EU countries here. We are talking about Turkey. If the best defence is to say "other people are doing this" then that isn't much of a defence.

    Secondly. No other country is trying to get into the EU by pretending to be a "modern muslim" country.

    Thirdly. In most muslim world especially in the Arab region. Woman are pressured not to wear the Hijab lest their career or education suffer. Most of the society is pro-Hijab but in those countries the poor only have a voice when they riot.

    What about the Islamic belief that people who have sexual relations outside marriage must be murdered?
    The punishment for sex outside of marriage isn't death. It's flogging. Death is proscribed to people who break the vows of marriage they made in front of God. Also before anything happens to them they have to be judged properly. It's not enough that "you saw them have sex". It has to be officially decided if they committed adultery and then the sentence.

    Honour killing is basically just killing a family member because of something that they may have done or how the community perceives them because of a certain action. Compelelty against Islam because that would mean that people care more about what others think then what God thinks. Also you can't start killing people off without an official authorisation by someone like a judge and he won't give you the right unless they committed a crime.

    I agree, the laws that hinder free speech with regard to Ataturk, the army and so on ought to be overturned; however, I can't help but think that you're unfairly picking on Turkish nationalists. What about Turkish Muslims who have zero tolerance for those who critique or mock their beliefs? Should we have such zealots in the EU?
    I'm not picking on anyone. The only people I'm against are the upper crust who think they represent Turkey. The ones who decided to go around an protest again AKP party with large Turkish flags and pictures of Ataturk. If these guys are meant to be the most European of all Turks. Then Turkey has no place.

    Also will you kindly keep this discussion related to Turkey and it's inhabitants. Going off and bringing in other Muslims isn't helping your case since you don't know much about it and it has nothing to do with the EU.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stettin)
    The punishment for sex outside of marriage isn't death. It's flogging.
    That's so much better, isn't it?

    (Original post by Stettin)
    Death is proscribed to people who break the vows of marriage they made in front of God. Also before anything happens to them they have to be judged properly. It's not enough that "you saw them have sex". It has to be officially decided if they committed adultery and then the sentence.

    Honour killing is basically just killing a family member because of something that they may have done or how the community perceives them because of a certain action. Compelelty against Islam because that would mean that people care more about what others think then what God thinks. Also you can't start killing people off without an official authorisation by someone like a judge and he won't give you the right unless they committed a crime.
    The point I'm trying to make is that Islam's position on the subject of private morality and the savage punishments it apportions to those who engage in pre-marital and extra-marital marriage indirectly fuel honour killings.

    Moreover, what's so different between a man residing in England who catches his wife engaging in sexual relations with another man and subsequently murders her on the one hand, and a Saudi woman being stoned to death after having been convicted of adultery by a court? In both cases, the substance is the same - the only difference is in the formality.

    (Original post by Stettin)
    I'm not picking on anyone. The only people I'm against are the upper crust who think they represent Turkey. The ones who decided to go around an protest again AKP party with large Turkish flags and pictures of Ataturk. If these guys are meant to be the most European of all Turks. Then Turkey has no place.
    On what basis do you make the claim that the secular Turks 'think they represent Turkey'? Who says that they think that they represent represent Turkey? If you haven't noticed already, a religiously-orientated party, the Justice and Development Party, has been governing the Republic with an overwhelming majority in the General Assembly for the past eight years and, in spite of the financial crisis and corruption within the party ranks, opinion polls consistently place them several percentage points ahead of the second largest party.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The point I'm trying to make is that Islam's position on the subject of private morality and the savage punishments it apportions to those who engage in pre-marital and extra-marital marriage indirectly fuel honour killings.
    That would only be if Honour killing was praticsed by Muslims alone. Pagans,Muslims,Sikhs and Hindus have been known to string up their relative for honour.

    Moreover, what's so different between a man residing in England who catches his wife engaging in sexual relations with another man and subsequently murders her on the one hand, and a Saudi woman being stoned to death after having been convicted of adultery by a court? In both cases, the substance is the same - the only difference is in the formality.
    There completely different. In the first case the man murdered his wife. He was also breaking the law of the Land (England). In the second case a neutral person has overseen the case and deemed the woman and her Lover (funny how you forgot it takes two to commit adultery). The Law of the land was respected and the woman given the opportunity to defend her self.

    There is a massive difference between justice and vigilantism.


    On what basis do you make the claim that the secular Turks 'think they represent Turkey'? Who says that they think that they represent represent Turkey? If you haven't noticed already, a religiously-orientated party, the Justice and Development Party, has been governing the Republic with an overwhelming majority in the General Assembly for the past eight years and, in spite of the financial crisis and corruption within the party ranks, opinion polls consistently place them several percentage points ahead of the second largest party.

    NO. dESPITE of the attempts by the second largest,army and the Elites to bring them down the AK party is a success. They have delivered success. Turkey is enjoying one of it's greatest boom in economy and has long as Erdogan and Gul keep up the reforms they will continue to do so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stettin)
    That would only be if Honour killing was praticsed by Muslims alone. Pagans,Muslims,Sikhs and Hindus have been known to string up their relative for honour.
    That still does not mean that Islam doesn't indirectly encourage such practices.

    (Original post by Stettin)
    There is a massive difference between justice and vigilantism.
    No, the only difference is in procedure. In both cases the substance is the same: a woman's life is brought to an end for committing adultery.

    People in the Western world are not horrified by honour killings because they are acts of vigilantism; they are disgusted at honour killings because they consider it to be a violation of a person's human rights. And so for this reason, it doesn't really matter whether a Muslim man in England personally murders his wife for committing adultery or whether a woman is stoned to death after having been convicted of committing adultery in a court in Saudi Arabia - in both instances, the woman's inalienable human rights have been squashed.

    (Original post by Stettin)
    NO. Despite of the attempts by the second largest,army and the Elites to bring them down the AK party is a success.
    Forgive me, but what does this have to do with my earlier point? You said that the secular Turks think that they represent Turkey and I merely asked you to provide evidence for this claim, so please comply.

    (Original post by Stettin)
    Turkey is enjoying one of it's greatest boom in economy.
    You clearly know nothing about the state of the Turkish economy, otherwise you would be aware of the fact that Turkey is in the midst of a severe recession. In fact, unemployment is at a record high (around 15 to 16 per cent) and the International Monetary Fund expects the Turkish economy to decline by around 5 to 6 per cent in 2009.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That still does not mean that Islam doesn't indirectly encourage such practices.
    How can it indirectly encourage something it explicitly forbids? Your looking for a link that isn't there.

    No, the only difference is in procedure. In both cases the substance is the same: a woman's life is brought to an end for committing adultery.
    No it isn't. I think it's quite obvious that your biased because you keep mentioning women. Islamic law regarding Zina hasn't been divided into genders. One for men and one for woman. Both have the same rules.

    Oh and how the **** can't you see the difference between a judicial court and vigilante court. One is run by people who want to string you up. The other is run by people who will either let you go or string you up. Either way you have a better chance with a judicial court.

    Forgive me, but what does this have to do with my earlier point? You said that the secular Turks think that they represent Turkey and I merely asked you to provide evidence for this claim, so please comply.
    The fact that when ever AK party comes up with something tad Islamic like unbanning the Hijab they talk about protecting the Secularity of Turkey. Their mentaility is off the ******* chart. One reason why they won't be allowed in. All I can say is There But For The Grace Of God.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6122878.stm


    You clearly know nothing about the state of the Turkish economy, otherwise you would be aware of the fact that Turkey is in the midst of a severe recession. In fact, unemployment is at a record high (around 15 to 16 per cent) and the International Monetary Fund expects the Turkish economy to decline by around 5 to 6 per cent in 2009.

    ............... Could it be because their is a ............ global reccission on? DUHHHHHH. Are you ******* dumb? Where the **** have you been since the Sub-prime crash 2 years?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stettin)
    Oh and how the **** can't you see the difference between a judicial court and vigilante court. One is run by people who want to string you up. The other is run by people who will either let you go or string you up. Either way you have a better chance with a judicial court.
    Once again, the difference is procedural. In both cases the substance is the same: a woman has been killed for committing adultery. The fact that the Saudi woman's stoning was authorised by a court does not make the act of taking her life any more morally acceptable.

    Let me give you a comparison: in the UK, we have freedom of religion. Now, let's imagine that the U.S. Congress passes a law tomorrow stating that any American citizen who converts to Islam shall be duly prosecuted and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by death. From a substantive perspective, what's the difference between the killing of an Englishman (let's call him Billy) who converted to Islam by a couple of thugs on the one hand, and the prosecution and execution of an American (let's call him Mark) who decided to convert to Islam on the other?

    The point I am trying to make is that honour killings are morally repugnant for those who are concerned about human rights, not because they are acts of 'vigilantism', but because the belief that an entity, whether it's a husband or a court, has the right to take another person's life for adultery is sickening, and this is why the Islamic punishment for adultery is on par with honour killings.

    (Original post by Stettin)
    The fact that when ever AK party comes up with something tad Islamic like unbanning the Hijab they talk about protecting the Secularity of Turkey. Their mentaility is off the ******* chart. One reason why they won't be allowed in. All I can say is There But For The Grace Of God.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6122878.stm
    I asked you for evidence in support of your claim that secular Turks think that they represent the Republic; this BBC news article does not in any way solidify your allegations.

    (Original post by Stettin)
    Could it be because their is a global reccission on? DUHHHHHH. Are you ******* dumb? Where the **** have you been since the Sub-prime crash 2 years?
    You said that, "Turkey is enjoying one of its greatest boom in economy". The word "is" refers to the present (ie now), so I have exposed your comment as crap. The Turkish economy is not enjoying "one of its greatest boom in economy"; the Republic is in the midst of a severe recession and unemployment is off the charts. Also, you can't entirely blame the financial crisis for Turkey's terrible economic condition; its neighbour, Syria, hasn't experienced a decline in its GDP (and neither have countries such as Egypt, Norway, Indonesia and Argentina). Furthermore, the financial crisis has hit Turkey particularly seriously, made all the worse due to the horrendous state of the public finances under the current AK government and unprecedented household debt.

    I'd also like to remind you that aggression is a sign of weakness, not strength; so the hostile tone of your comments and your petty use of the f-word merely exemplifies that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Once again, the difference is procedural. In both cases the substance is the same: a woman has been killed for committing adultery. The fact that the Saudi woman's stoning was authorised by a court does not make the act of taking her life any more morally acceptable.

    Yes it does. The Saudi woman legally accepted the rules that were imposed on her by the Government. She knew what the risks where of doing such and such acts. It's entirely different from vigilantism.

    Let me give you a comparison: in the UK, we have freedom of religion. Now, let's imagine that the U.S. Congress passes a law tomorrow stating that any American citizen who converts to Islam shall be duly prosecuted and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by death. From a substantive perspective, what's the difference between the killing of an Englishman (let's call him Billy) who converted to Islam by a couple of thugs on the one hand, and the prosecution and execution of an American (let's call him Mark) who decided to convert to Islam on the other?
    Because Billy had done nothing wrong. His death would be seen has murder by the British Police and the thugs who kill him would be prosecuted. How ever in Marks case. He knew the punishment for conversion and he continued with it. The state came after him and gave him the opportunity to defend his actions in court. The Thugs wouldn't give Billy the chance to say something. They would just come in and kill him.


    The point I am trying to make is that honour killings are morally repugnant for those who are concerned about human rights, not because they are acts of 'vigilantism', but because the belief that an entity, whether it's a husband or a court, has the right to take another person's life for adultery is sickening, and this is why the Islamic punishment for adultery is on par with honour killings.
    What I'm trying to get into your head is that you don't what the hell your on about. Honour killing is something cultural that affects women in most cases and men in smaller cases. But the Islamic law for Adultery is not gender specific. The only difference comes between the martial status of the accused. It doesn't care if your a woman or a man. That fact that you keep on bringing gender into reveals the link your trying to establish here.

    I asked you for evidence in support of your claim that secular Turks think that they represent the Republic; this BBC news article does not in any way solidify your allegations.
    Yes it. Did you read the part about how they were the defence of the nation? Without them the entire nation would collapse.


    You said that, "Turkey is enjoying one of its greatest boom in economy". The word "is" refers to the present (ie now), so I have exposed your comment as crap. The Turkish economy is not enjoying "one of its greatest boom in economy"; the Republic is in the midst of a severe recession and unemployment is off the charts. Also, you can't entirely blame the financial crisis for Turkey's terrible economic condition; its neighbour, Syria, hasn't experienced a decline in its GDP (and neither have countries such as Egypt, Norway, Indonesia and Argentina). Furthermore, the financial crisis has hit Turkey particularly seriously, made all the worse due to the horrendous state of the public finances under the current AK government and unprecedented household debt.

    I'd also like to remind you that aggression is a sign of weakness, not strength; so the hostile tone of your comments and your petty use of the f-word merely exemplifies that.
    Reply With Quote

    There is a massive difference between Turkey and these other countries. The country that Turkey exports to have all suffered a major economic recession. Especially Germany. There is nothing the AK party can do. Also even though their economy is more exposed to the outside world then Syria or Egypt they haven't had Northern Rock/F,Mac style collapsing in their banking industry.

    Why is this? Fisical disipcline. Something the AK party has been giving the Turkish people. This is why all the flag and Ataturk waving did nothing for the secularists in 2007.

    One of the perennial problems that helped to cause Turkey’s past economic crashes was political instability. That has largely gone since Mr Erdogan’s mildly Islamist Justice and Development (AK) Party shot to single-party rule in 2002. Indeed, its relatively successful management of the economy is one reason why AK was re-elected with an even bigger share of the vote in 2007.

    Your damn right I'm hostile. You get on my nevers with silly stuff. All that muslim talk you kept on bringing just wears you down after a while.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, Turkey shouldn't become part of the EU as they aren't European in any ethnic or cultural way. In fact fighting invading Turks could be considered part of European heritage, lol.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stettin)
    Funny how little you know. In Turkey the laws are designed to discriminate against women who cover up. If a woman wears Hijab education is denied to her.
    Of course I know about that law, and I support it 100%.

    (Original post by Stettin)
    Also it's against Islam to kill someone because of honour. Honour killing is something that happens culturally in parts of Asia. The oldest woman arrested was a sikh grandmother who planned her daugther in laws murder because she dishonoured her family. I bet you didn't know that did you?
    Yes I did read about that story. The problem is, many muslims (and people of any other religion) who commit honour killings use the Quran/religious texts to justify their actions.

    (Original post by Stettin)
    MHP has reached out to muslims to expand it's base. Two years ago they had no seats in Parliment. Now they have 71.
    Oh and the ordinary nationalism in Turkey is to high to join the EU. Something that needs to be changed.
    Pretty much every single Balkan country is nationalist, not to mention the Caucasus nations. But I agree with you there, it is something that needs to be changed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    No, Turkey shouldn't become part of the EU as they aren't European in any ethnic or cultural way. In fact fighting invading Turks could be considered part of European heritage, lol.
    Ha! But it would be futile to even attempt injecting any sense into someone like you, so I'm not even going to bother.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.