mcgillianaire: (South Park Me)
I'm in America. I've been here 3 weeks, and I'll be here for 9 more. The weather in Providence, RI is a lot warmer (and sunnier) than London - so far. I'm thoroughly enjoying it. I'm staying with my sister and future bro-in-law. I'm taking a couple of online courses from Harvard's continuing education school and a course to prepare for the GRE. The GRE is a standardized test for postgrad studies in 'Murica. I've decided to turn my back on the legal profession and return to university next year. I'll be applying for public policy degrees in the neighborhood. Boston is commuting distance so there are quite a few options to pick from. I definitely don't have the grades or accomplishments to even consider the likes of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, but hopefully I will get admitted to the next rung of alternatives below it.

My family would like me to remain in America after my postgrad degree, preferably close to my sister, but I am pretty clear in my mind that this is just a short adventure across the pond. That said, I am really looking forward to the opportunity of studying in America, and I am open to the idea of staying here for a year or two afterwards if I can secure a job in DC (or anywhere else, as long as it's in public policy). But I would like to return to London eventually.

I haven't quite left permanently either. Once my three months on the visa waiver program ends, I'll be flying back to London for the Christmas period. As amazing as the weather is right now and as cool as it is to be in America, I miss Blighty. Thank fuck, if you'll pardon my French, for smartphones and tablets. And thank fuck for the BBC. The radio app has been a godsend. It's like I've never left. Although waking up to You & Yours has been an interesting experience; sort of like the opposite of waking up to Up All Night when I'm in Oman or India. And with free VPN apps, I've even been able to tune into Sky Sports to watch live events, while catching-up on the latest comedies via the iPlayer app!

It was also interesting to vote in the Labour leadership election while sat on my computer here in America. I didn't give Jeremy Corbyn any of my nominations and instead plumped for Kendall, Cooper and Burnham in that order. None of my choices did well in the deputy leadership and London mayoral candidate election either. But nothing was as amusing as the media and shadow cabinet meltdown that greeted Corbyn's victory declaration. The Tories and right-wing media predictably labelled him a threat to humanity. And Blairites clearly didn't know what to do; cross the floor, jump ship or piss from inside the tent. Basically a raft of similar options that will not change the result in 2020.

And poor Corbyn, the chap clearly wants politics to change, but I don't think he feels comfortable leading the circus. Leadership necessitates compromise, and if there is something that sets Corbyn apart, it is his principled consistency. Love or loathe him, he has made a career out of it. The leadership will be a test of his political ambition and nous, neither of which he has displayed until now. Yet there are many attributes that I admire in Corbyn (the backbencher), and it is refreshing that someone of his disposition has risen to the top of British politics.

Alas, one wonders whether Labour should reduce itself to simply a party of protest, or seek to position itself as a government-in-waiting, ready to take over from the Tories at a general election. It's one thing to secure a thumping mandate from the cheerleading squad, quite another appealing to a wider electorate.

I wasn't even bothered about his appearance at PMQs, at St Paul's cathedral, his insistence to remain silent during the national anthem, or the chaotic manner in which the shadow cabinet was formed. It reflected a person for whom substance matters over spin. But I can understand why the electorate may have viewed it differently. You know, the same people whose votes he needs in 2020. Corbyn faces an uphill battle. The Tories plan to reduce the number of MPs and re-draw constituency boundaries - largely to their benefit. And there's still no sign that Scotland will abandon the SNP. Which leaves about 50-75 marginals to gain from the Tories in order to form a government.

Corbynistas are banking on three things: the 35% that didn't vote in May, old Labour UKIP voters and old Labour Green/Lib Dem voters. It's true, a lot of people didn't vote in May and Corbyn's election may inspire some people to vote for the first time/again. On the contrary, Labour voters who really don't like Corbyn's policies, but voted for Labour earlier this year, may jump ship too. It also remains to be seen whether young voters stick with Corbyn, if he continues to compromise on his principles (eg: accepting a role as a privy counsellor etc). As for old Labour UKIP voters, UKIP finished second in many Labour-held seats. There wouldn't be much point if those voters returned to Labour. Labour needs UKIP voters in Tory-held seats to 'return to the fold'. It's a big ask. One suspects such UKIP voters would not have been impressed with Corbyn's refusal to sing the national anthem at an event commemorating the Battle of Britain. And as for old Labour Green/Lib Dem voters, well they may gain a dozen seats or so that way, but what use will that be? They need at least 50. I just cannot see Corbyn winning a general election.

It may all be be a moot point. Several pundits have chipped in with their predictions of how long they think Corbyn will last, ranging from a few days to three years. Even members of his shadow cabinet refuse to say with any conviction that he will fight the next general election. For what it's worth, my guess is between six months to a year. Once the novelty wears off, once conference season ends, once there are a few more media "gaffes", and once the opinion polls tank, we'll see whether he roughs it out. Unlike power-hungry careerists who would refuse to fall on their sword until the last possible moment, I think Mr Corbyn would recognise his role in a sinking ship and jump.

One of Corbyn's illustrious predecessor's is often quoted (though perhaps incorrectly) as saying that a week is a long time in politics. Well, what a week it has been. To those who complained that politics had become a sterile affair, you've got your comeuppance. Now then, are you prepared for the consequences? I'll be watching from afar with interest.
mcgillianaire: (Union Jack)
"But my father summed it up pretty well by saying, "Nobody in our family has ever voted Conservative, without a stiff drink before, and afterwards."" ~David Owen

If a week is a long time in politics1, what about a lifetime? Tasked with the challenge of teasing out salient introspections from the life and times of some of Britain's grandees, is the contemporary political historian, Peter Hennessy. He delivers an insightful programme, as it launches its third series with the enigmatic David Owen. Having listened to several episodes, Owen's is among the best. I also recommend the one with John Major from last year. In all, Hennessy has talked to:

01. Shirley Williams
02. Jack Straw
03. Norman Tebbit
04. Neil Kinnock
05. John Major
06. Roy Hattersley
07. David Steel
08. Margaret Beckett
09. David Owen

And by the end of this series he will have interviewed Norman Lamont and Clare Short too. Each episode is either 28 or 43 minutes (depending on the series), with the latter forming the perfect length to explore a lifetime without inducing boredom and avoid glossing over multiple events or issues. But there are a few peripheral shortcomings. For instance, by the end of this series the uneven ratio of guests by political party will have been exacerbated to comprise: 5 Labour, 3 Tories, 2 SDP/Lib Dems and 1 Liberal. Given that Williams and Owen were also cabinet secretaries with Labour, you could question whether the breakdown was a matter of design, bad timing or lack of Conservative enthusiasm (I find this doubtful). This only matters because it's produced by the BBC. There's also the issue of gender ratio with three women out of eleven by the end of this series. And one other minor criticism about Hennessy's interview technique. When teasing out their reflections, he sometimes comes across as presumptuous, but it may have been an intended tactic or perhaps more likely, my imaginative nitpicking. Those minor quibbles apart, it is an absolutely fantastic programme and essential listening for the anorak.

1 Possibly misattributed to former British prime minister and Labour leader, Harold Wilson.
mcgillianaire: (Cricket Stumps)
I've updated my entry from a couple years ago to reflect this week's episode with Freddie Flintoff. As with almost every episode of this awesome programme, it's worth a listen, not least for that gorgeous Lancastrian accent.
mcgillianaire: (BBC Logo)
0700 - BBC Radio 4             - Today
0900 - BBC Radio 2             - Sounds of the 60s
1000 - BBC Radio 6 Music       - The Huey Show
1300 - BBC Radio 2             - Pick of the Pops
1500 - BBC Radio Asian Network - Official Asian Download Chart
1600 - BBC Radio 1             - Dance Anthems
1800 - BBC Radio 6 Music       - Craig Charles Funk and Soul Show
2100 - BBC World Service       - Newshour
2200 - BBC Radio 2             - Sounds of the 80s
mcgillianaire: (Default)
For about the next four weeks, depending on the episode, five excerpts of this fine book read by the author himself, will be available to listen anywhere in the world. Each episode is a delightfully compact fourteen minutes, so there's no excuse to miss out on any of them. Apparently, it was originally broadcast in 2010, repeated in 2011 and again in 2012, but I seemed to have missed them all. I guess it doesn't help that all these broadcasts, including this one, have been on BBC Radio 4 Extra.

I've blogged one of my favourite quotes from the book. I bought it many years ago but unfortunately I never finished it. Then I lent it to an Irish lass who was just getting into the sport and had quite taken to the longer forms of the game. She kept it.
mcgillianaire: (India Flag)

The documentary banned in India. If this video is removed then I will try and replace it with one that works.
mcgillianaire: (Union Jack)

mcgillianaire: (BBC Logo)

Paul Dacre, speaking passionately against press regulation in October 2011.

A fortnight ago, I couldn't even picture the man running Britain's second biggest-selling newspaper, The Daily Mail. I knew who Paul Dacre was, and I had (irrationally) grown to dislike him, but beyond that, I didn't know anything about him.

I had absolutely no idea about his life, what he sounded like, or whether his own views coincided with the controversial ones propagated by his middle-market tabloid. He was an enigma. A hidden sort of satanic figure, an imaginary Norman-Tebbit-Spitting Image-like-puppet machinating in the background. Now, a fortnight later, and the devil has been unmasked.

It began with BBC Radio 4 profiling him, as a response to the furore caused by a Daily Mail article written by Geoffrey Levy at the end of last month, provocatively headlined "The Man Who Hated Britain", referring to Ralph Miliband, the late father of Labour Party leader - and Daily Mail bete-noire - Ed. Then, yesterday, Dacre ventured into the dark side himself by writing in The Guardian, his rag's arch-nemesis in the eyes of his mob, sorry, readers. Sound a bit dramatic? It certainly felt surreal.

Throw into that mix a running feud between The Mail and Auntie, the post-Leveson repercussions, the Snowden revelations, and you have the perfect ingredients for a box office blockbuster. And best of all, we still don't know how it'll end yet.

For what it's worth, I'm with Paul Dacre on press regulation. I do believe that along with certain other things, such as: parliamentary privilege, free, fair and secret ballot elections, and an impartial judiciary wedded to the rule of law; a free press, warts and all, is essential to the healthy functioning of a democracy. Dacre is right to point out the disproportionate coverage by the BBC over the Ralph Miliband story, in comparison with the Guardian's revelations of the Edward Snowden documents.

As much as I am Auntie's cheerleader and part-time Guardianista, I would rather live in a country that allowed all views to be aired freely, even ones that disgust me. That does not mean the press can publish whatever they want. Nor should they be limited by a Royal Charter or even self-regulation. The solution lies in the application of existing laws on defamation, contempt and other relevant crimes as and when necessary. Some of the existing laws are already too stringent, particularly those relating to the freedoms of expression and privacy as embedded into English law by the Human Rights Act, via the European Convention. Even so, I would still prefer judges to recalibrate the imbalance on a case-by-case basis, rather than a regulator.

In any democracy worth its salt, there needs to be a clear separation of powers between the legislature, executive, judiciary AND (especially) the press. Many constitutional law textbooks do not include the press as an organ of government, and perhaps rightfully so, as it does not directly partake in the law-making process. However, it is precisely because of that unofficial status, it should be able to remain independent and hold the State to account. The last thing we need is for an official branch of government to interfere with a centuries-old institution, that has done more good than harm. Let those who break the law be held to account by the courts, and let the Great British public decide for themselves who deserves their readership or not.
mcgillianaire: (BBC Logo)
Here's an excerpt from the speech of a most fascinating politician, that eventually paved the way for the formation of the Social Democratic Party in 1981, and eventually, New Labour in the 1990s. At the time, Jenkins had been out of Parliament for three years and was working in Brussels as Britain's first and only (to date) President of the European Commission. Charles Kennedy later said of the lecture: "Every so often in life, you hear someone articulate your own thoughts - and they do so with an elegance and eloquence which make you wish you had been able to say it yourself. Roy Jenkins's Dimbleby Lecture of 1979 had that effect on me." Even today, this particular passage rings true as much as it did back then:

"The paradox is that we need more change accompanied by more stability of direction. It is a paradox but not a contradiction. Too often we have superficial and quickly reversed political change without much purpose or underlying effect. This is not the only paradox. We need the innovating stimulus of the free market economy without either the unacceptable brutality of its untrammelled distribution of rewards or its indifference to unemployment. This is by no means an impossible combination. It works well in a number of countries. It means that you accept the broad line of division between the public and the private sectors and don't constantly threaten those in the private sector with nationalisation or expropriation.

You also make sure that the state knows its place, not only in relation to the economy, but in relation to the citizen. You are in favour of the right of dissent and the liberty of private conduct. You are against unnecessary centralisation and bureaucracy. You want to devolve decision-making wherever you sensibly can. You want parents in the school system, patients in the health service, residents in the neighbourhood, customers in both nationalised and private industry, to have as much say as possible. You want the nation to be self-confident and outward-looking, rather than insular, xenophobic and suspicious. You want the class system to fade without being replaced either by an aggressive and intolerant proletarianism or by the dominance of the brash and selfish values of a "get rich quick" society. You want the nation, without eschewing necessary controversy, to achieve a renewed sense of cohesion and common purpose."

You can read other extracts of the speech here and here, but I'm not sure if the latter link is a copy of the whole lecture. If anyone knows of a better link or has access to the full speech, I would much appreciate it.
mcgillianaire: (BBC Logo)
Every Sunday at 10pm, Carolyn Quinn presents Westminster Hour on BBC Radio 4. For the past five weeks, she has filled a fifteen minute segment before What the Papers Say, with a fascinating profile into the careers of five 20th-century British politicians who "made the weather". The phrase was invented by Winston Churchill in reference to Joseph Chamberlain, the former Colonial Secretary, of whom he wrote, that although he never became Prime Minister, he still managed to play a crucial role in shaping the political agenda of his day. The profiles have been chosen by Vernon Bogdanor*, one of Britain's foremost constitutional experts, as part of a lecture series under this entry's subject title, at London's Gresham College.

Founded in 1597 under the will of Sir Thomas Gresham, an English merchant and financier who founded the Royal Exchange in 1568, the College plays host to over 140 free public lectures each year. In this six-part series, Bogdanor has profiled the political careers of Aneurin Bevan, Iain Macleod, Roy Jenkins, Enoch Powell, Tony Benn and Sir Keith Joseph. All the lectures at the College have already been delivered, while the last segment on Joseph will air this Sunday on Radio 4.

Depending on your interest and/or time, you can listen to the condensed segments from Radio 4 here, if not you can watch, listen, download and even read the full-length lectures at Gresham College here. As a keen student of British politics, these lectures have been thoroughly informative and enjoyable. Bogdanor is undoubtedly an engaging and fluent speaker. He has also clearly researched his material thoroughly. Without giving too much away, one of the most fascinating things I learnt was how Tony Benn had started off as a Labour-centrist or even Labour right-winger, actively supporting and voting for Hugh Gaitskell to become leader in the 1950s, before gradually shifting (permanently) to the hard-left only in the 1970s.

On a more general note, it is indeed incredible the amount of free and easily accessible online multimedia content that we have at our disposal on our politicians. Whether it be a peek into their personal lives on Desert Island Discs, a meeting with their younger self through Archive on 4, their biography by an admirer on Great Lives, a secret memo released via UK Confidential, or a BBC Archive recording, there is an incredible body of material to choose from. And that's just radio content. Add to it these lectures, other Gresham College lectures, other freely available public lectures, BBC documentaries, Channel 4 documentaries and the BBC Parliament channel, and you've got a lifetime's worth of political programming.

(* Bogdanor's most famous former student at Oxford University is the current PM David Cameron, whom he has described as "one of the ablest" students he has taught, whose political views were "moderate and sensible Conservative".)
mcgillianaire: (BBC Logo)
Regular readers will know of my love for etymology. Now my favourite radio station has chosen a recently published book that describes itself as A Circular Stroll through the Hidden Connections of the English Language, as its Book of the Week. Starting today, extracts will be read from an abridged version till Friday by one of my favourite comedians, Hugh Dennis. Pure heaven!

The Etymologicon: A Circular Stroll through the Hidden Connections of the English Language [Amazon UK]
Inky Fool Blog
mcgillianaire: (BBC Logo)
Here's how Wikipedia describes it:
    "Four regular panellists discuss moral and ethical issues relating to a recent news story. The debate is often combative and guest witnesses may be cross-examined aggressively. The programme is hosted by Michael Buerk. The format is loosely based on the Select Committee procedure at the House of Westminster, in which invited guests on a particular topic of discussion are mercilessly grilled (often to the point of humiliation) by a regular (and carefully chosen) panel (such as the MPs on the Select Committee).

    Michael Buerk delivers a no-holds-barred (often irreverent) preamble launching the topic, then introduces the first witness. In the ensuing interrogation, the witnesses are teasingly goaded into philosophically tripping themselves up (contradicting their own beliefs). Platitudes are quickly exposed for their fragility. Witnesses taken unawares by the incisive, unceremonious questioning, may then replace civility for discourteousness - usually when their arguments have been hit for six. When being briefed for their appearances, witnesses were encouraged to be as aggressive as you like."
With a passion for politics and as a budding lawyer, The Moral Maze should've been essential listening every week. But for some reason I hadn't appreciated its value until recently. Better late than never. Each forty-five minute episode examines the moral issues behind one of the week's news stories, and in the past month we've had discussions about the morality of income tax, the point of having prisons, science & morality, public figures & public morality, and slut walks.
mcgillianaire: (BBC Logo)
Now that was an incredible programme. I learnt a lot about the early decades of Formula One racing and I never realised how little consideration was given to safety in those days. We've come a long way. A must-see!

(One thing I love about Twitter is doing a real-time search to get a sense of what other people think of a TV programme. With most programmes there are strong opinions either in favour or against it, with at least a handful of critical tweets. But with this documentary I've not found a single critical tweet about the programme itself, merely some dissatisfaction with the title. It really was moving, esp the final scene involving David Purley).
mcgillianaire: (BBC Logo)
I love the fact Aunty Beeb commissions a fairly regular stream of programmes based in India but this one is pretty ordinary. There are some good bits and it is almost saved by the sultry Anita Rani (of The One Show fame) but it's an hour long programme that could've been squeezed into half that. However I'm not really the target audience. I'm sure many Brits (especially those who've never been to or know much about India) will find it interesting and possibly even fascinating. Luckily for me there's only one more episode to sit through next week. I know I don't have to watch it but it's almost worth it for the eye candy alone and besides, it's about India.

(The programme did remind me of another one the Beeb broadcast in 2009 and that I wrote about here. It was titled The Maharajas' Motor Car: The Story of Rolls-Royce in India. Indeed in the new programme Anita Rani meets the Maharana of Udaipur and even gets to drive around in his 1924 Rolls-Royce which featured so prominently in the earlier programme. The earlier programme was much better and possibly more educational.)
mcgillianaire: (Cricket Stumps)
270 runs, 10 wickets. England should win and India only have themselves to blame. Our only hope is to bat better and salvage a draw, while the Poms should score 275 runs tomorrow and then declare. [SCORECARD]


Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's infamous spin doctor, was the guest on TMS at tea time. Fascinating stuff as usual. Big cricket fan. Was at the match today by invitation of Beefy Botham's son and future daughter-in-law and hence sat in their private box. He grew up in Yorkshire so he was a big fan of Geoffrey Boycott. Even set up one of the earliest fan clubs for the great opening batsman and was at Headingley in 1977 when Boycs scored his 100th first-class century at his home ground. Then Aggers mentioned Ed Miliband as another chap who hero worshipped GB and was also present at Headingley in 1977. So I did the natural thing and googled this golden nugget of news. Turns out Ed Milibean even skipped a day at school to watch Geoffrey's final innings at Lord's. Still not endeared to his politics but he's definitely gone up in my estimation. Aggers then nudged the Sultan of Spin to use his "professional skills" (or words to that effect) to market Test cricket in the modern-age. Campbell played a straight bat and offered some interesting suggestions none of which I can remember right now but they seemed sensible at the time. As angry as I am with him vis-a-vis the Iraq War dossier/Dr David Kelly etc, I am intrigued as to his ability in promoting the longer-form of the game using his undeniable talents.
mcgillianaire: (Cricket Stumps)
364 runs, 6 wickets. A brilliant double-century and some inept bowling barring P Kumar's stellar effort. Two performances added to the Lord's Honours Board. A decent day's cricket. I hope our batsmen get stuck in tomorrow and eke out a draw because there is only one other possible result: an England win. Ishant Sharma needs to sort himself out and Sreesanth better stop heaping praise on Twitter and prepare for Trent Bridge. He was rubbish at Taunton and will need to step it up if Zaheer is unavailable. However there were encouraging signs of Zak working out at the Lord's gym which suggests the injury/niggle is not serious. Let's hope for the best!

In other interesting developments, Lily Cooper nee Allen was the secret guest at tea time on TMS. Her knowledge of the game was surprisingly good. Moreover she attends village cricket regularly. She provides the cakes and tea! Apparently she got into the game because of her partner whom she recently married. I remember the media interest generated by her previous appearance on TMS a couple years ago. Aggers was obviously having a good time, flirting on-air with the London-based singer. She also earned brownie points for turning down an ECB-inspired Twenty20 initiative to exploit her celebrity value because it wasn't Test cricket! [SCORECARD]
mcgillianaire: (Cricket Stumps)
It's not quite the end of day's play yet but I doubt they'll return before tomorrow morning. How disappointing the rain and bad light have played spoilsport, though as an Indian cricket fan it's probably a good thing. Hopefully Zaheer's injury is not as serious as it looked when he winced off the field in pain with a twinge behind his right leg. A hamstring perhaps? With Sehwag already out until the third test, Zak's exit will ruin our series chances.

Dhoni won a good toss and I was happy he put England in to bat. I thought we bowled well without much luck in the first session. Perhaps the lack of experience of bowling in such conditions worked against Kumar and Sharma who couldn't control the pronounced movement, both in the air and particularly off the pitch. Kumar especially seemed to start off really well but tailed off as the session went on. We also suffered from the lack of a genuinely quick opening bowler to make use of the new ball and overcast conditions. Nevertheless, it was no surprise Zaheer secured the first breakthrough with a fantastic delivery to trap Alistair Cook in front. The TMS commentators questioned whether the ball had done too much but the replays showed it would've probably still hit the top of middle and leg. At lunch it was pretty even at 1/43 with Strauss playing Khan fairly comfortably.

After lunch India gave away a few cheap runs before Zaheer Khan surprised Strauss with his first bouncer of the day. It was a clever delivery and resulted in yet another scalp reading "Strauss c whoever b Khan", though as one tweeter pointed out, such a dismissal could have repercussions both for the IMF and the French Presidency. The wicket put the breaks on the English scoring rate and just when it seemed like we were getting into the groove, Zaheer pulled up with yet another injury and the two South African-born English batsmen built up a fifty-plus partnership. There were a couple of tough chances put down and a couple direct hit run-out opportunities, but England did well to battle their way to 2/127 before bad light enforced an early tea break. This was followed by a downpour which kept the players off the field for even longer but apparently it has stopped, the covers are off and the umpires will inspect the pitch in a bit. I doubt they'll come back on with only an hour left but ye never know. On balance, England have the edge and India will be praying Zaheer returns.

EDIT @ 1825:
I have been proven wrong as the players are back out on the field and will attempt to deliver 13.4 overs by the closing time of 1930. I didn't realise they could play until then. It's still gloomy but the floodlights are still on.

EDIT @ 1826:
Oh. The covers are apparently back on, the players and umpires are running off... and that seems that. Well, that re-start ended almost as quickly as it began. Onto tomorrow!
mcgillianaire: (BBC Logo)

Miles Kane is an English musician, best known as the co-frontman of The Last Shadow Puppets and former frontman of The Rascals before their break-up in 2009. These three tracks are from his debut solo album, Colour of the Trap, which released in May this year. They didn't peak very high on the UK Singles Chart (149, 85 and 171 respectively) but I think they're great. Would love to hear him play live. [Album on Spotify]

Milk Kan is a hip-hop duo from south London. This track is from their new album The Junk Shop which released last month. Don't let the opening sample from My Fair Lady and poor video put you off it! [Album on Spotify]

Mitch Benn is a British musician and stand-up comedian known for his humorous songs performed on BBC radio. This classic was released last year but I only discovered it recently. I love it to bits! [Single on Spotify]

Foster The People - Pumped Up Kids [#1 | 5-11 Jul 2011]
Alice Gold - Runaway Love [#2 | 12-18 Jul 2011]
mcgillianaire: (BBC Logo)

Alice Gold is an English singer-songwriter based in London. Her debut album Seven Rainbows released on July 4th 2011 and Runaway Love is my favourite track on it. [Link to album on Spotify]

Foster The People - Pumped Up Kids [#1 | 5-11 Jul 2011]


mcgillianaire: (Default)

July 2017

91011 12131415


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 24th, 2017 04:03 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios