Spudders Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Ahh the good old 'human rights' rule once again trumps everything else............ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8777138/Family-life-ruling-means-Nigerian-rapist-can-stay.html 'Family life' ruling means Nigerian rapist can stay A Nigerian rapist cannot be deported from Britain because a legal fight to remove him took so long he has developed a “life” here, European judges have ruled. Akindoyin Akinshipe, 24, was first told he was being deported in 2003 while serving four years for the rape of a 13-year-old girl. He was 15 at the time and told the girl he was called DMX, after the controversial American rapper who glorified the rape of young girls. Akinshipe had only been in the country three years when he first faced removal but he has been able to challenge the order through the domestic and European courts for the last eight years. Since then he has been to university, gained a Master's degree, become a regular churchgoer and found a job. The European Court of Human Rights yesterday ruled that deporting him now would breach his right to a family and private life, despite accepting that “very serious violent offences can justify expulsion”. Last night his family told The Daily Telegraph that they were "very pleased" with the court's decision. The ruling was even based on the fact that he was effectively developed a social and cultural life in the UK rather than a family life because he does not have a wife or children. It is the latest controversial decision from the Strasbourg court to defy the ruling of UK courts, which had concluded he could be removed. The court agreed to a request from Akinshipe not to identify him in its ruling but The Daily Telegraph today names him. The move is another blow to David Cameron’s pledge to overhaul human rights laws and deport foreign criminals. It also comes two months after Theresa May, the Home Secretary, announced moves to re-examine the definition of right to family life in a bid to stop it being exploited by offenders and terrorists. Figures last week showed foreign criminals are using the so-called Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in more than half of all successful appeals against deportation. Dominic Raab, the Tory MP who campaigns for a review of human rights laws, said: 'It is a warped notion of human rights that allows a convicted rapist to claim the right to family life to avoid deportation.” Akinshipe arrived in the UK aged 13 with his two sisters in 2000 to join their mother, who was working as a nurse. Two years later he was convicted of the rape of a 13-year-old girl after he and friends had encouraged her via text messages to meet them. The Old Bailey heard at the time that he was obsessed with the US gangster rapper DMX, who said in one of his songs: “If you got a daughter older than 15 I'm gonna rape her”. Akinshipe was jailed for four years but the Home Office inadvertently granted him indefinite leave to remain while he was inside after granting his mother the same right. Once officials realised he had a rape conviction he was told he would be deported – in 2003. Attempts to prevent deportation were made before immigration tribunals and the Court of Appeal but failed but the case dragged on and ended up before the European Court. Judges there concluded that while his conviction was a “serious one” other factors that had to be taken in to account included his length of stay in the UK, the time that had elapsed since his offence and the “solidity of social, cultural and family ties” with the UK. The court said that he has now spent almost half his life here and now works for a local council in London. It also awarded him almost £3,500 in costs. Speaking from their terraced house in Downham, south east London, his mother, Munisola, a 48 year-old hospital nurse, said: "We are very pleased (with the court ruling). "It has been a very traumatic experience. But he will need to speak to his solicitor. We just want our privacy." A UK Border Agency spokeswoman said: “We are extremely disappointed by this judgment and will consider the next steps carefully. “This government is determined to remove foreign criminals from the UK and does not believe that Article 8, the right to family or private life, should outweigh the need to protect the public from serious criminals.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint-scooby Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightysaints Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 The sooner we pull out of Europe the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudders Posted 21 September, 2011 Author Share Posted 21 September, 2011 All about his rights, his family are happy, etc, nothing about the rights of the victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 The sooner we pull out of Europe the better. Although of course, the council has nothing to do with the European Union "The council is a distinct entity and is not a branch of the European Union (EU)." "The European Court of Human Rights should not be confused with the European Court of Justice - the EU's highest court." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/4789300.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Akinshipe arrived in the UK aged 13 with his two sisters in 2000 to join their mother, who was working as a nurse. Two years later he was convicted of the rape of a 13-year-old girl after he and friends had encouraged her via text messages to meet them. The Old Bailey heard at the time that he was obsessed with the US gangster rapper DMX, who said in one of his songs: “If you got a daughter older than 15 I'm gonna rape her”. Akinshipe was jailed for four years but the Home Office inadvertently granted him indefinite leave to remain while he was inside after granting his mother the same right. Once officials realised he had a rape conviction he was told he would be deported – in 2003. Attempts to prevent deportation were made before immigration tribunals and the Court of Appeal but failed but the case dragged on and ended up before the European Court. Judges there concluded that while his conviction was a “serious one” other factors that had to be taken in to account included his length of stay in the UK, the time that had elapsed since his offence and the “solidity of social, cultural and family ties” with the UK. The court said that he has now spent almost half his life here and now works for a local council in London. It also awarded him almost £3,500 in costs. Speaking from their terraced house in Downham, south east London, his mother, Munisola, a 48 year-old hospital nurse, said: "We are very pleased (with the court ruling). "It has been a very traumatic experience. But he will need to speak to his solicitor. We just want our privacy." A UK Border Agency spokeswoman said: “We are extremely disappointed by this judgment and will consider the next steps carefully. “This government is determined to remove foreign criminals from the UK and does not believe that Article 8, the right to family or private life, should outweigh the need to protect the public from serious criminals.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Im disappointed that they have only awarded him £3500 costs he should have got at least £350K We have treated this individual inhumanely thank goodness the ECHR have reliased what a despotic country the UK has become After all is it not the norm for some nigerian tribes to make love to under aged girls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 RAH RAH! [insert right wing ********, quasi-racist bit in here] RAH RAH! *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Im disappointed that they have only awarded him £3500 costs he should have got at least £350K We have treated this individual inhumanely thank goodness the ECHR have reliased what a despotic country the UK has become After all is it not the norm for some nigerian tribes to make love to under aged girls? Only to clear up the AIDs... Its truly disgusting. And he is a dirty savage scumbag who has no place in our country. To read that he is employed by a London council is even more infuriating. He came to our country, raped a 13yr old child and gets convicted, ends up abusing the legal system to the point where he gets indefinate leave to stay here, and then gets employed by the ****ing government! Shame on the UK and shame on the EU, how anyone can see this as right and just is beyond me! If I were that 13yr old girl, that has now been raped by both the nigerian scumbag and now the European courts, I would be seeking vigilante justice and I would follow it through to the end! Very similar to this story from last year, where an iraqi illegal ran over a 12yr old girl, and ran off and left her to die. The father had to turn the life support machine off for his only child. Courts decide he gets to stay in the UK... as he has the right to a family life! http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/15856653 Staggering really, do these judges do it for a laugh, or are the paid commission by the media to produce these scandalous stories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 ......... Shame on the UK and shame on the EU, how anyone can see this as right and just is beyond me! Nothing to do with the EU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 If he was deported, he would only be back on the next plane, so why bother. Give him what he wants, lots of cash, a big house, anything to make up for the horrible names he may have been called and let him be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudders Posted 21 September, 2011 Author Share Posted 21 September, 2011 RAH RAH! [insert right wing ********, quasi-racist bit in here] RAH RAH! *sigh* If you can find me a similar story where a white English person has done the same thing and been afforded the same luxuries as this case, feel free to post it here so we can all give that person some abuse and show the same disgust to that story. That’s one of the problems with this country these days, if you say bad word about a person who is not from here you’re branded a racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint.tom.clancy Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 RAH RAH! [insert right wing ********, quasi-racist bit in here] RAH RAH! *sigh* I take it you support his right the rape 13 year old girls and then get AWARDED costs, as well as being employed by our own Government then? He is f*cking scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 RAH RAH! [insert right wing ********, quasi-racist bit in here] RAH RAH! *sigh* Oh dear, how very very short sighted, ignorant and pathetic that post is...... and that's regardless on any ones view point on the original article. The funny thing is, such uneducated views and sweeping generalisations, by lumping all those that aren't impressed into a group labled right wing quasi racists, only serves the interests of one group....................... The far right. You do more harm than good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 He is f*cking scum. This. He raped a child. He has no rights as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 See the Daily Hate readers out in force again.... FFS... you why is it that these 'cases' get so much additional publicity because the criminal is foreign? Someone above mentioned the 'illega iraqi' in the hit and run.... a hideous crime for sure, but 1 of 100s that occur in britain each each so why single this out? Firstly, the case is truely shocking and yes like 100% of normal brain functioning human beings, rape is destestable and should be punished appropriately within the law. But why isolate this case because the guy is 'allowed to stay'? He was 15 at the time which is disturbing - but has built a life which appears to indicate he has been rehabilitated, following being convicted and serving a sentance. Second one of the Great things about Great Britain, is our legal system that we have exported beyond out boarders, it does not always get things right, but it is FAIR even if sentance are sometimes lax. Secondly, as an advanced and civilised nation we do not have the death penalty (thank feck) and have signed up to Human rights legislation and as such within that legislation this individual has been able to continuue his life rather than return to a country where the criminal justice system is unlikely to provide him with a fair trial and the death sentance apply. It seems to me that some of you want to chose only the 'nice' bits of human rights legislation ... eg the bits that provide you with yours and protect you, yet not the bits that actually mark us out as a far better and more civilised nation, even if at times it challenges what we might feel is morally right. I dont feel comfortable with this case as clearly he should he should have served a longer sentance, but if given the right to stay, and build a life, that is in fact a seperate issue as to whether he served appropriate time for his crime. This is not about some liberalist agenda or left wing namby pamby ****e... (most law lords and judges tend to sit on the right anyway), but about a legal framework that is part of an advanced civilised nation. He may well be 'f*cking scum' - I dont know, whether he shown remorse or not or truelly changed his ways, but he was convicted, sentanced, served his time and got on with his life - and that is surely what should happen. Yes, the victim may not be as fortunate, but you cant attack a whole system simply because of a case against an 'immigrant' and because you think that makes it a special case - its not different from any victim of sexual offences in this country... where are the posts on all those lenient sentances or pity for those victims? By singling this case out you imply another agenda And that is what Pancake was alluding to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 See the Daily Hate readers out in force again.... FFS... . Bol loxs. I'm a dyed in the wool leftie but he's a child rapist. End Of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Bol loxs. I'm a dyed in the wool leftie but he's a child rapist. End Of. I'm with Frank on this one. There are two disparate issues here. One is his crime and sentence, the other is his right to stay in the country. Most people, once they've served their sentence, are able to resume employment etc. That's what he did. From that article, it seems he was rehabilitated (isn't that what we all want prison to do to people?). He educated himself, and found himself a worthwhile job. I suppose he could have been a recidivist and lived off the state forever, but he didn't. He, too, was not an adult when he committed the crime - just like the victim. Don't misinterpret what I'm saying. I think rape is one of the most horrific of crimes, bar murder. But he's been punished for that. His dispute and appeal over his deportation is entirely a separate matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 I'm with Frank on this one. There are two disparate issues here. One is his crime and sentence, the other is his right to stay in the country. Most people, once they've served their sentence, are able to resume employment etc. That's what he did. From that article, it seems he was rehabilitated (isn't that what we all want prison to do to people?). He educated himself, and found himself a worthwhile job. I suppose he could have been a recidivist and lived off the state forever, but he didn't. He, too, was not an adult when he committed the crime - just like the victim. Don't misinterpret what I'm saying. I think rape is one of the most horrific of crimes, bar murder. But he's been punished for that. His dispute and appeal over his deportation is entirely a separate matter. As far as I'm concerned ANY child rapist, of any colour, religion, ethnic background or planet has no rights. They are scum. I do not give a fat rats @rse whether he's done his time or not, and I speak as someone who has done time, he should be hounded to the ends of the earth and his life made a living hell. If he'd touched my daughter they would never have found his body after his release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Bol loxs. I'm a dyed in the wool leftie but he's a child rapist. End Of. yep he is/was whatever... that is not the issue that so many posts above are arguing about - for that he has been tried, convicted, sentanced and released... he got on with his life (rightly or wrongly) and that is one debate as to whether a0 sentances are correct, or b) whether criminals who have served their time should be free to get on with as normal a life as possible... or locked up for good - that is for judges to decide and that is what they did... I dont agree with the sentance, which is way too short even for a 15 year old, but that is not the issue this post 'raised' Its about whether having completed his sentance or paid for his crime, after having buiold a life here whetehr he should be allowed to stay - and as it stands that is judged on the issue of human rights legislations ... WHICH does not (and shoudl not ) factor in the previous crime. The fact that this has been highlighted on a football fan forum, when 1000s of rape cases or victim needs are not suggests an alternative agenda. The fact someone brings up andother 'illegal immigrant' crime as opposed to 1000s of hit and runs per year means its not unreasonable to suggest that this is driven by another agenda. As hideous as teh crime is, its not the issue when determining his right to stay under the legislation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 See the Daily Hate readers out in force again.... FFS... you why is it that these 'cases' get so much additional publicity because the criminal is foreign? Errrr, because it is a story about the attempted deportation of a foreign criminal, therefore nationality is at the core of the story. Not race, which some automatically assume:rolleyes: , but nationality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 WHICH does not (and shoudl not ) factor in the previous crime. frank this highlights perfectly that you havent read the article properley. Just jumped at the first chance of playing the race card. Go back ..... read it, accept the above is wrong and start again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Franks a good response, but the Human rights act has been misused and misinterpretated by various defence lawyers to help excuse perpertrators' for their actions. That is what is so wrong. look at Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Masri. Moving away from an ethnic slur there was a convicted rapist Anthony Rice who went on to murder Naomi Bryant after he was released by using the HRA about his human rights being violated. So for me it is the Human Rights act that is used more in favour of the perpertrator instead of protecting the rights of the victim The guy raped a 13 year old. seems to have got off lightly . I have know idea what he is doing as a council worker but he will be working away from vulnerable people and children . Well I hope so . as he will be on the sex offenders register. he should not have been awarded costs. what about the young girl who was raped , does that not come into the equation what about the stigma she has to live with . I bet akinshipe didnt give a toss the way he traumatised that young girl for the rest of her life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 The sooner we pull out of Europe the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Vote UKIP and start fixing this f/cked country of ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Just been reading the press and journal same thing has happened in Aberdeen a jamaican who was connected on a string of sexual and physical assaults against women and been previously jailed for rape. And subsequently been ordered to be deported. Has won his appeal to stay in the uk yet another abuse of human rights act. What about the most basic human right of them all is that the wider society should be protected from those that CIO it crimes of the grativity this scum committed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Jim Posted 22 September, 2011 Share Posted 22 September, 2011 As spitting image used to say "it's politcal correctness gone maaaaaadd". Human Rights ............ my ar53!! The f***er should be deported. He took away the human right of 13 year old girl and she has to life with that life sentence. Just as Mohammed Ibrahim took away Paul Houston human right to have a family life when he killed Paul Houston's only daughter. Scum like this should never be allowed a visiting visa to the UK let alone peramnent residency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 22 September, 2011 Share Posted 22 September, 2011 frank this highlights perfectly that you havent read the article properley. Just jumped at the first chance of playing the race card. Go back ..... read it, accept the above is wrong and start again. Gemmel - I did read it and noted the fact that the Human Rights judgement could factor in violent crime etc... but fair enough, the comment was perhaps based more on opinion... but why do I suggest there is an 'agenda' here - I am talking about the agenda of singling out such cases for the fan forum moral judgement and the way in which this has bee responded to on this site - if there was no agenda, why have some brought up 'other cases' such as the Iraqi or Jamaican - if race is not an issue and its about nationality, what about the cases involving Germans, French, Polish or whatever? The problem with the subsequent responses is that they are IMHO deliberately mixing up 3 seperate (if not) issues to make a point... which is pretty typical when trying to 'cloud' the issues and get a morally unanimous response .... Issues: 1. 15 yr old rapes 13 old - Hideous crime, no argument, is convicted, sentanced and serves his time and is released - First question: sentancing issue, oviously 4 years is pathetic, but that is separte from all the other issues Second question: should an ex con be allowed to get on with their lives after having served a sentence? Again seperate from the other issues 2. After having spent several years in the UK, should an ex con be allowed to stay in the UK if they have established a life, not reoffended and gotten on with things - YES it is very difficult to ignore the nature of the crime when making this judgement, and as we see, the legislation does allow for the nature of violent crime to be considered in making that judgement... but it is not the only issue - This judgement should IMO not be based on anything other than what the judges use... eg the nature of the crime, the level in which the ex con has re-establihed his life etc - but rightly IMO also includes whether in deporting someone back to their country of origin, what might happen to them in that case, even if they have served a sentance in the host country. The nationality/race shoudl and does not play any part in the judgement and is irrelevent to the debate, so does not even need to be mentioned whether they are Polish, German or Iraqi or Nigerian - so why mention it? The media is to blame in the first instance, and then so are thsoe who are bringing it up in subsequent 'cases' 3. Should we care what happens to an ex-con if deported after they have served their sentance here? Personally, yes. If we take the repsonsibilty for their trial, conviction and sentancing, washing our hand afterwards, is not what makes Britain Great... what makes us great and BETTER than many other countries is that we DO have a civilised and mature society that deals with these issues, under the umbrella of legislation. 4. Human Rights ACT - yes it has been misused, abused and like many Acts and legislation, lawyers find ways of using it to their advantage. - but that is teh nature of deomocracy in that if the people wish to see amendments to this to close loopholes etc, they have the opportunity to do so in the way they vote and acts are amended accordingly. This has feck all to do with 'political correctness' (gone mad or otherwise - the Daily Mails favourite slogan), but about a democratic value system that ensures that the starting point is not extremes, but fairness. If the fairness is considered too lax, it will be ammended through the democratic process. And tehre is good reason for that. It removes the reactionist emotive element from legislative change - you only have to look at how the figures for approval of capital punishment go up immediately after a child murder etc and then settle back down as folk realise that it might satisfy their emmotion need for justice, but does not in anyway act as a deterrent and is a backwards step. 5. The emotive issue. As a father of a daughter, as pointed out above, would I ever forgive someone who in any way harmed my child? NO, would I want to search tehm out and do them harm? YES to bloody right. But that personal need is not what legislation is based on - we have progressed from an 'eye for an eye' thank feck and although from a personal perspective I can fully understand that need if personnaly effected, its not something on which to base legislation. 6. So yes I believe that there is an 'agenda' here because if debating the issues, nationality is irrelevent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint.tom.clancy Posted 22 September, 2011 Share Posted 22 September, 2011 Why is nationailty irrelevant, if it's a case of a foreign rapist not being deported due to having "built a life"? Its completely relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HK_Phoey Posted 22 September, 2011 Share Posted 22 September, 2011 Speaking as an immigrant in the country I have chosen to live in, I can only say say if you are not prepared to live by the rules of the country in which you are effectively a guest you should have no rights. Japan has some of the strictest drink driving laws in the world. Mandatory 10 year prison sentence for anyone caught drink/driving. Also if I am traveling in a car with someone I know has been drink driving I could also get a 10 year stretch. I also know for sure that should be convicted of such a crime, on the day of my release I would be driven to the airport and put on the next plane back to the UK and would have no complaints. I have built a life for myself here and enjoy it immensely but if I cannot obey the rules why should the rest of society make exceptions for my socially unacceptable behavior. Send the scum back to whence he came I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 22 September, 2011 Share Posted 22 September, 2011 I'm with Frank on this one. There are two disparate issues here. One is his crime and sentence, the other is his right to stay in the country. Most people, once they've served their sentence, are able to resume employment etc. That's what he did. From that article, it seems he was rehabilitated (isn't that what we all want prison to do to people?). He educated himself, and found himself a worthwhile job. I suppose he could have been a recidivist and lived off the state forever, but he didn't. He, too, was not an adult when he committed the crime - just like the victim. Don't misinterpret what I'm saying. I think rape is one of the most horrific of crimes, bar murder. But he's been punished for that. His dispute and appeal over his deportation is entirely a separate matter. I'm sorry but the second he touched that 13 year old he lost (or should have) any right to stay in this country. People are rejected from staying for far lesser crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 22 September, 2011 Share Posted 22 September, 2011 Frank My posts were not about race, I have know idea if the jamaican is black white or pink . I do not have a race agenda but pointing out the fact how the HRA is abused. i did mention the scum Anthony Rice who murdered that lass in winchester after a string of convictions using the HRA to get parole for a previous rape card - he was english and white. I do have a gripe of the HRA and how it is misused and misinterpreted by some of the legal fraternity particularly the ambulance chasing types Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_saints Posted 22 September, 2011 Share Posted 22 September, 2011 Probably a nice bloke if you get to know him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Posted 23 September, 2011 Share Posted 23 September, 2011 With a Master's degree and a steady job he sounds like a good example of a rehabilitated former young offender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 23 September, 2011 Share Posted 23 September, 2011 This is nothing to do with the EU, it's the ECHR which is part of the council of Europe which even Switzerland and Russia are members of. People need to understand what is what before making stupid EU comments. I'd rather have a few cases like this than abandon Human Rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 September, 2011 Share Posted 23 September, 2011 I'm sorry but the second he touched that 13 year old he lost (or should have) any right to stay in this country. People are rejected from staying for far lesser crimes. But - and this is the salient point - in the eyes of the law the two issues are judged separately. He was tried and convicted for the rape, served his sentence and, it seems, was successfully rehabilitated. His case citing Human Rights has absolutely nothing to do with the rape case - nothing at all. This the way the law works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now