February 09, 2008

Labour's Nuclear Legacy

On January 10th 2008, the government declared its support for anew generation of nuclear power stations to be built across the UK. Theannouncement was made by Business Secretary John Hutton, who argued thatnuclear power provides a “safe and secure” way to meet Britain’s energydemands, whilst helping to reduce the volume of greenhouse gases released intothe atmosphere.

Hutton’s announcement marked a further twist in what hasbeen a rollercoaster ride for Labour since it came to power. In 1997, TonyBlair’s manifesto made a bold commitment to the promotion of “cleaner, moreefficient energy use and production, including a new and strong drive todevelop renewable energy resources.” Labour claimed to see “no economic case”for the construction of new nuclear power stations, conveying an Old Labourpolicy in language more acceptable to modern Britain.

Six years later, the government reaffirmed itsnuclear-scepticism, referring to the technology as an “unattractive option.”This position seemed to be vindicated in the months that followed. In 2004, theEuropean Commission took legal action against the UK over the handling ofnuclear waste, and this was compounded by a leak of highly radioactive materialat the Sellafield plant the following year. Labour’s scepticism, it seemed, waswell placed.

But since then, and despite these setbacks, this mostcontroversial of technologies has enjoyed a steady revival in the UK. In 2006,Blair (backed up by Chief Scientist Sir David King) told business leaders thatnuclear power was back “with a vengeance”. It was now the government’s beliefthat times had changed, and any sensible energy policy could not exclude thenuclear option. Since then the Prime Minister has changed, but the messageremains the same: nuclear power is the prudent choice.

The case for renewing the UK’s nuclear capacity to fill theemerging ‘energy gap’ is made from a number of angles. It provides a largeamount of power with minimal carbon emissions, so it’s climate-friendly. It’s aproven technology that can be produced safely, and business groups are stronglyin favour. It is also argued that because the uranium can be sourced fromfriendly states such as Australia, it makes sense from a strategic point ofview.

On closer inspection, these arguments are somewhatunconvincing. First, the new power stations will not be functioning in time toclose the gap between declining output and rising demand for energy. Second, asgreen campaigners point out, the impact on greenhouse gas emissions will amountto a 4% cut after 2025, which appears to many to be too little, too late.Third, the Sustainable Development Commission has repeatedly highlighted theunresolved issue of disposal of radioactive waste, branding the government’smove “totally irresponsible.” Finally, it is argued that a focus on nuclearpower diverts attention away from far more attractive, long-term solutions toenergy security and climate change.

This last point is particularly significant as an indicatorof the government’s worrying reluctance to make bold decisions about thecountry’s future. There is widespread consensus that we need to use lessenergy, and move away from a reliance on unsustainable sources. Nuclear energyis seen as the easy fix, allowing us to continue as we are without anyconcerted effort to tackle the real problems. Despite its efforts to convinceus otherwise, Labour’s focus on nuclear energy at the expense of lesswell-established alternatives does not constitute a bold vision of the future.

This is a missed opportunity. By allowing investment to flowto nuclear power, other renewable technologies (competing in the same market)are neglected. Sustainable resources will continue to be viewed as nothing morethan a ‘top-up’ mechanism, and all the while society must continue to deal withthe huge costs of nuclear power. Although Labour’s new energy bill willincrease investment in some renewable forms of energy production (and this isat least a positive trend), this does not constitute the much-needed ‘strongdrive’ that was promised in 1997.

Whether or not you agree that the government’s gradualu-turn on the nuclear issue is the right decision or not, it is hard to denythat the manner in which it has reached this conclusion is a depressingindication of Labour’s disregard for the democratic process. Last month’sannouncement would have been made a few months earlier, were it not for theHigh Court’s decision to uphold a complaint by Greenpeace regarding thegovernment’s energy review. Labelled a ‘sham’ by its critics, the court agreedthat the consultation on nuclear power had been unfair, misleading and “legallyflawed”.

“The announcement highlights exactly how not to approachnational policy setting,” says Robert Upton, of the Royal Town PlanningInstitute. “[The government] has failed to demonstrate alternative options andwhy nuclear is the most effective way forward.” Indeed, a recent poll by IpsosMORI indicates that many people still need convincing: only 41% believed thatnuclear power should be a major contributor to the nation’s energy in thefuture, as opposed to 81% support for renewables.

Even if the nuclear route is the right one, the government hasmade no effort to put its case forward, or to provide adequate responses tolegitimate concerns put forward by a wide range of groups. Regardless of thecontroversy surrounding nuclear power, this lack of respect for citizens is aworrying state of affairs. As such, Labour’s energy policy tells us much about thestate of the government today. Not only has it failed to think big and deliverits promise of a “strong drive” towards renewable energy, it has shown that itis scared of discussion and debate. Once the party of bold thinking and freshideas, Labour is becoming increasingly conservative, arrogant, and cowardly. 

October 12, 2007

Why students should steer clear of HSBC

Over the summer, an online campaign led by the National Union of Students led to a fairly embarrassing u-turn by the UK’s largest bank. The row started when HSBC decided to withdraw its offer of an interest-free overdraft for graduates. Suddenly, account holders leaving university in 2007 were facing charges of up to £140, with barely a month’s notice. The bank was hardly reassuring, claiming that the move would help students make the transition to working life. Graduates were also reminded that they could take advantage of the ‘Graduate Plus’ account, offering preferential treatment at a cost of £9.95 a month.

The response came in the form of the Facebook group, ‘Stop the Great HSBC Graduate Rip-off,’ formed by NUS vice-president Wes Streeting. The campaign attracted a good amount of press coverage, allowing student representatives to highlight the financial difficulties faced by graduates, particularly those who go on to further study or into low paid jobs and internships. By August, over 5000 angry students had joined the group, and a protest outside the bank’s headquarters in London was planned for early September. HSBC finally bowed to the pressure, announcing at the end of August that they would reverse their decision and work with the NUS to deliver a service that “fully reflects the needs of recent graduates.”

That an online campaign forced a financial giant like HSBC to u-turn in this way might surprise some. It wasn’t quite David versus Goliath, but it was hardly an even fight. The bank made £11 billion in profit last year, and has a strong enough presence on the high street to ensure that its student account remains popular. In addition, a strong selling point for HSBC is its status as the “world’s local bank,” which gives it a distinct edge over its smaller competitors.

Despite this, the bank claims that it is not too big to listen to the needs of its customers, and has now agreed that graduates are entitled to a bit of breathing space during the gap between study and employment. This is of course a great result. But those who want to forgive and forget should pause to reconsider.

The decision to charge graduates was a shabby attempt to take advantage of those who have no choice but to get into debt. The attempt by HSBC to disguise this as a helping hand was as patronising as it was transparent, and it is hard to believe that it would have listened to students had there been no coverage of the campaign in the national media.

It should be also be remembered that this is not the first time that the bank has been accused of taking advantage of those with financial difficulties. In July, the Office of Fair Trading accused HSBC (along with eight other leading high street banks) of charging excessive fees to those who exceed their overdraft limit. Nor has “the world’s local bank” always been honest about its fees; in August this year, the Advertising Standards Authority decided that the bank had falsely claimed customers could withdraw cash free of charge.

It’s true that all banks have to make a profit. HSBC have shown that they are particularly good at finding new opportunities to do so. And whilst that’s great news for shareholders, it’s not so encouraging for those of us who, for one reason or another, have to live with debt for a few years. There are plenty of banks out there, some of which have put a lot more thought into how they treat students and those on lower incomes. Any of these would be more trustworthy than the bank that initiated the ‘great graduate rip-off’.

Written for the Warwick Boar, 11th October 2007

March 05, 2007

The Politics of Climate Change

In 2004, Prime Minister Tony Blair warned that “unchecked climate change has the potential to be catastrophic in both human and economic terms,” signalling a commitment to tackle the issue of global warming head on. Three years on, and those campaigning for a greener Britain are still waiting for change.

There have been some positive signs since Labour came to power in 1997. In addition to a few powerful speeches, Blair has announced that he would offset the carbon emissions of his family’s holiday travel. The Secretary of State for the Environment, David Miliband, has also shown an awareness of the scale of the problem. Earlier this year he declared, “every part of the way we work, go to school, the way we live is going to have to change.” More recently, he backed ‘carbon labelling’ for food sold in the UK, promising to work with food producers to create a system whereby consumers can compare the environmental impact of their purchases.

Furthermore, David Cameron’s re-branding of the Conservative Party is a sign that climate change has now become of the key issues over which MPs will fight for the moral high ground. It now seems that politicians from all sides are starting to acknowledge the problem, and in this sense at least the UK is doing a lot better than the United States.

However, it easy for politicians to talk in general terms about the problem we face; it is far more difficult to deal with the specifics.

In January, Environment Minister Ian Pearson caused a stir when he branded Ryanair “the irresponsible face of capitalism.” The airline responded by claiming that it was the greenest in Europe, having invested heavily in fuel-efficient engines. This defence is hard to sustain; a seat on one of Ryanair’s flights to Milan could cost as little as 19p, plus around £25 in tax, which clearly undermines any claim by the company that it is concerned about carbon emissions.

However, what has become clear is that Mr. Pearson’s comments do not necessarily reflect a consensus within the government. A few days after the Environment Minister identified cheap flights as a key factor contributing to climate change, the Prime Minister suggested that the ‘stop flying’ message was too impractical. To ask people to stop flying, he said, was “like telling people you shouldn’t drive anywhere.”

The issue of road transport is also an increasingly important (and controversial) topic, and is an area in which Labour’s record is particularly unimpressive to environmentalists. Since 1997, road traffic has increased by 10%, and the government is spending £1 billion every year on expanding the road network. Despite this, the real cost of motoring has decreased since Labour came to power, whilst public transport has become more expensive.

Emissions from vehicles on the road now account for one fifth of the UK’s entire carbon output. The government has so far been reluctant to take bold steps to curb the number of journeys made by car, and it is easy to see why. Plans to introduce pilot road-charging schemes caused a significant backlash, and prompted nearly 1.8 million people to sign an online petition voicing their opposition. Unsurprisingly, the government was accused of inventing another ‘stealth tax’, and the Daily Mail fumed about the prospect of “Big Brother black boxes” in every car.

For the government to make any real progress in tackling climate change, it will have to overcome huge opposition. Jess Raw, a second year student and part of the team that organised February’s Go Green Week, believes the media has an important role to play.

“Rather than coming up with sensational scandals about ‘stealth taxes’ and ministerial miles (the distances clocked up by politicians’ cars), the media in the UK needs to come to terms with the enormous pace of climate change and the massive impact that it will soon have on all of us, and get behind the government’s efforts at making fast, bold environmental policy decisions.”

It is perhaps inevitable that a large part of the population will resist any big changes to the way we live our lives. But while many green campaigners would accept that it is difficult for politicians to formulate policies that have a significant impact, it is far harder to accept the fact that the government has actually made it more difficult to make any progress at all.

Many environmental campaigners would argue that for every step forward, the UK takes two steps back when it comes to tackling climate change. A good example is the approval of plans for a fifth terminal at Heathrow back in 2001.

"The decision to expand airport capacity mean that within a few years all other sectors of the UK economy will have to be carbon neutral, zero emission, if we are to meet our climate change target,” explains Dr. Peter Newell. “This is clearly implausible but results from a refusal to stop the massive growth in airline use."

Dr. Newell, currently at Warwick’s Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation, believes the problem lies in the inconsistent approach to confronting the issue. “What we should be aiming for is a sustainable trade, energy, agriculture and transport policy rather than a separate climate change policy. The problem at the moment is that any gains made by reducing emissions through environmental policy are being systematically undermined by the growth in fossil fuel use associated with these other sectors."

The issue of consistency is key, and is particularly significant when applied to Britain’s transport network. ‘Pay-as-you-go’ driving schemes and congestion charges are a good way to encourage people to use public transport, but their impact is undermined by rising prices and a lack of investment in the alternatives.

It could even be argued that the government has, on occasions, tried to pass the buck. Acknowledging the problem of rising train fares, a spokesperson for the Department of Transport recently stated, “its the commercial decision of the operators on how to set their fares.”

The government has arguably shown a lack of imagination, will power and bravery in confronting the problems with Britain’s transport network, and this neglect has seriously undermined the UK’s ability to reach its goal to reduce carbon emissions by 60% by 2050.

Green activists may view Labour’s progress so far as poor, but there is reason to be optimistic. Climate change is now viewed as an immediate and real problem by much of the population and by all three of the major political parties, and we can expect more competition between party leaders to appear greener than the opposition.

However, there are those who argue that partisan politics can only take us so far. "We need consensus over environmental reform,” warns Ed Sanderson, who is currently President of the University’s Liberal Democrat group. “Any political capital gained from green issues is at the expense of a cross-party, cross-ideology solution to the crisis we face.”

The problem is, of course, that this sort of consensus is not easily achieved. Political parties have to win votes and secure funding, and these two goals are not always conducive to the sort of bold approach that is required. "The problem for many mainstream political parties,” says Dr. Newell, “is that they rely upon economic interests that feel threatened by action on climate change for their funding and support. This presents a serious obstacle to taking effective action."

Therein lies the problem. The stark reality is that when confronted with a choice between tackling climate change and winning an election, most politicians are clear where they stand. Only when these two options are no longer incompatible will real progress be made.

Written for The Warwick Boar, 6th March 2007 

January 31, 2007

Do we really need to define 'Britishness'?

In recent months, there has been increased debate surrounding the idea of ‘Britishness’. Politicians, journalists and commentators are all adding their voice to the discussion, and are likely to devote even more time to the subject in the approach to the next general election and the imminent face-off between Gordon Brown and David Cameron.

But according to a recent survey of social attitudes in the UK, the proportion of the population that consider themselves ‘British’ has declined from 52% to 44% in the last decade. At the same time, the Scottish Nationalist Party appear to have wide support from the Scottish electorate, worrying those who have recently celebrated the 300th birthday of the Union.

It is easy to see why a decline in the numbers of those who feel a sense of national identity might worry the future Labour leader. For the Scottish MP with his eye on Number 10, it is now more important than ever that the population remains united.

The politics of the Union between the England and Scotland is, its fair to say, rather complicated. But it is also only one issue in a complex discussion of what unites the population of the UK. There are a number of questions still to be answered, starting with the obvious: Do we really need to define ‘Britishness’? There are many who would argue that we do.

“The concept is certainly not redundant,” says Matt Hartley, chairman of Warwick Conservatives. “It’s important that society has something that all its members can take pride in, and patriotism will always have a role to play in maintaining a strong, cohesive and stable society.”

“It is a shame, however, to see the idea of Britishness being abused by politicians for their own ends - the most recent example being Gordon Brown, whose patriotic talk of “being British” is nothing more than a cynical attempt to counterbalance his own Scottishness in the minds of the electorate.”

Damilola Ogunleye, President of the Politics Society, is also wary of public figures abusing the idea. "There isn't a problem with having a term of national identity as such, as long as it is a flexible concept that isn’t reduced to an irrelevant rallying term for politicians and a few segments of society."

Brown’s supporters would no doubt counter that this is a subject that has long been close to the Chancellor’s heart. In 2005, Brown highlighted the importance of “a sense of shared purpose,” and argued that a belief in “tolerance and liberty… shines through British history.” If you’re prepared to forget about the legacy of colonialism, you might think that he has a point.

In 2006, Brown took the idea further by proposing a national day for Britain, directly referring to the American model. It seems that there is still has some way to go if he is to win over the population. David Cameron has taken a slightly different approach, stating recently, “we can't bully people into feeling British - we have to inspire them.”

For Chemistry student Gary Bartley, the emphasis should be placed on redefining, rather than inventing, the concept. “We need to move away from the stereotype of men drinking tea and watching cricket, and move towards a more realistic idea of what we stand for today.”

Ciaran O’Connor, Vice-President of the Politics Society, is altogether more sceptical that it is possible to define what it is to be ‘British’. “I think it’s a bit of an outmoded concept, and what actually is it anyway?” he asks. “I think some form of cultural identity is a good thing, but to differentiate between that and other, more universal values such as liberal democracy and human rights seems slightly pointless.”

Professor Steve Fenton, who recently participated in a One World Week event looking at multiculturalism in the UK, agrees. “Who said Britain has a copyright on these values. We can be all for these values without it being because of our national identity."

“I am not at all convinced that people in their everyday lives are very concerned,” he continues. “People have other concerns which are related – for instance there is undoubtedly a strong band of sentiment against immigration, and a rather narrower band against multiculturalism.”

These comments highlight an important point. The values that Brown and others would like to associate with ‘Britishness’ are shared by societies throughout the world – so how can we claim these under the banner of the Union Jack? Some would argue that it is also misguided to assume that it’s possible to reach a consensus on which values should be included in a comprehensive definition of our national identity.

“Ironically, this kind of national soul-searching can actually divide people more than it unites them,” said Labour Party member George Eaton. “Individuals have multiple identities and everyone's path to some notion of Britishness will be different.”

A further problem for those seeking to promote tolerance and diversity as ‘British’ values is the fact that this isn’t always supported by reality. One political commentator, Martin Bright, recently commented in the New Statesman magazine; “the values [Brown] treasures… have been sorely challenged internationally by the government’s foreign policy. Jade Goody has not helped.”

Indeed, the majority of people living in the UK would no doubt support the promotion of positive values. That 40,000 people called Channel 4 to complain about the alleged racism in the Big Brother house recently is a good illustration of this. But whether or not these callers’ actions were distinctly ‘British’ is still a matter for debate.

Written for The Warwick Boar, 31st January 2007

January 14, 2007

The Good, the Bad and the Tabloids

According to the Audit Bureau of Circulation, roughly three quarters of daily newspapers sold in the UK are tabloids. The Sun and News of the World boast the highest sales, both selling an average of three million copies every day. Compare this to the UK’s most popular ‘quality daily’, the Daily Telegraph, which sells just under 900,000 copies, and tabloid sales seem all the more impressive.

These figures will no doubt be of concern to those who disagree with the tabloid approach, typified by sensationalism, irrationality, scaremongering and hate.

But a closer look at the statistics provided by the ABC reveals a much more worrying trend. The two most popular tabloids are both published by News International Ltd., which also publishes The Times – a ‘quality daily’ with a circulation of roughly 600,000. Together, these three publications reach 6.7 million readers every day, a figure that any other news source would find difficult to match.

News International is the UK subsidiary of News Corporation, the Media Empire of Australian billionaire Rupert Murdoch. This empire includes 175 newspapers, magazines, HarperCollins publishers, Sky, the Fox network as well as the recently acquired MySpace.com.

There are no signs that Murdoch’s empire has reached its limit, either. In November, BSkyB acquired just under 20% of ITV shares, which had the result of both ruining Richard Branson’s takeover plans and further boosting Murdoch’s own power and influence in the industry.

The implications of Murdoch’s ownership of such a large chunk of the British (and global) media are not limited to the boardroom. Evidence of his influence is very easy to find. For example, Murdoch has recently ‘converted’ to the cause of environmentalism, backing down from his previously sceptical position to one of concern for the impacts of global warming. Turn on Sky News, and you’ll see the recently added carbon emissions counter. Open a copy of The Times, and you can read an increasing number of sympathetic articles on the subject. Even The Sun is talking about global warming as a serious problem; it has recently boasted of its ‘campaign’ to raise awareness of the issue, and included an exclusive article by Sir Nicholas Stern.

That Murdoch has now woken up to what other commentators and news sources have been saying for a long time is not in itself a problem – and is of course a huge boost to environmental campaigners everywhere. However, what is of concern is that one man should have so much influence over the news agenda. In 1997, The Sun famously claimed that its support for Labour had delivered Number 10 to Mr. Blair – and sure enough Blair had realised its importance (or should that be Alistair Campbell?) and obediently posed for a photo.

Depending on your political outlook, Murdoch’s support for New Labour in 1997 was either a very good thing or a very bad thing, but either way it’s hard to deny that his publications do have a significant impact in forming opinions and attitudes.

Although there is a cause for concern in the UK, the situation is far worse in the United States, where the biased, inaccurate and hateful reporting by Fox News is the subject of a documentary by Robert Greenwald, entitled ‘Outfoxed.’ In response to the film, and almost as if he wanted to prove Greenwald right, Fox News Reporter Eric Shawn responded, “it’s unfair, it’s slanted and it’s a hit job. And I haven’t even seen it yet.”

Frustration with American news channels is often shared by much of the international community. The best example of this is recent creation of France 24 and Al Jazeera English, two international news channels designed to counter what is seen as propaganda coming from the US. In a report for the BBC, Caroline Wyatt wrote that the former was born out of Jacques Chirac’s “intense frustration that France’s voice was not being heard loudly enough.”

Despite challenges from rivals new and old, Murdoch is not prepared to allow his strong position slip away without a fight, as his recent acquisition of ITV shares illustrates. For example, News International has recently created The London Paper – a free paper designed to rival Metro. Why bother with a free paper read on the tube by bored commuters? The answer: Metro is owned by Associated Press, publishers of the Daily Mail – Murdoch’s biggest rivals in the newspaper market.

It is clear that Murdoch has the financial power to seriously damage anyone or anything that becomes a serious challenge to his position. But what is even more worrying is that he has enough political clout to ensure that, for the most part, politicians remain silent on the subject.

Written for Footnote, 14th January 2007 

Who can Make Poverty History?

Writing about web page http://www.wids.org.uk

In an age in which the total income of the world’s 500 richest people exceeds that of the poorest 416 million, it is fair to say that the world is characterised by a huge level of inequality.

In the summer of 2005, the Live8 event reminded us all that we’ve got it pretty good, compared to the billions that live in conditions of poverty, war, famine and disease. The Make Poverty History campaign encouraged millions of people to take action, and to do their bit in the fight to end world poverty. But who can take the most effective action?

For many, the most obvious response to this question is to leave it to the government. Those in power have the know-how and the resources to make the important decisions that affect lives across the globe. Getting involved in politics, either through a political party, or by lobbying government, therefore seems like a good starting point if we are ever going to make poverty history.

In the search for solutions to global problems, the importance of government policies is undeniable. In Britain, at least, the Labour government has confronted development issues head on, and today the Department for International Development (DFID) is committed to halving world poverty by 2015.

Although many campaigners and academics would debate the level of success achieved by DFID and by the Labour government, its potential ability to make a real difference to the lives of those in developing countries is considerable.

On an international level, it is governments who fund, and therefore influence, bodies such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation. The choices made by these institutions can make or break a community’s prospects for development.

However, it is easy to assume that governments are more often than not in the pockets of big business, and that ultimately the private sector gets its own way. It is certainly true that the governments of many developing countries struggle to compete with capitalist muscle. In 2000, the Institute of Policy Studies reported that of the 100 largest economic entities, 51 of these are corporations.

Sadly, it seems almost inevitable that industry will tend to take advantage of countries with the weakest labour laws and environmental standards. This can have devastating consequences for a population, such as the ‘Rainforest Chernobyl’ in Ecuador. CorpWatch reported that local communities “have suffered severe health effects, including cancer, skin lesions, birth defects, and spontaneous abortions,” all a direct result of Texaco’s disregard for the environment.

That is not to say that the private sector is incapable of working towards progressive causes. It has, after all, become good business sense for companies to engage in more responsible practices, and it is hard to deny that – generally speaking – consumers are starting to become more aware of the benefits of ethical spending. Sales of Fairtrade products, for instance, have been growing at an average of 20% every year since 2000.

It’s easy to forget how much power consumers do have in influencing the behaviour of big business, but there are plenty of cases of consumers demanding more than low prices.

In 2002, for example, Nestle was forced to retract its demand of $6million from the Ethiopian government. The Swiss food giant, concerned about the impact of a consumer boycott, responded to the 40,000 emails it had received (thanks to a campaign initiated by Oxfam) and even offered to reinvest a part of its profits (which totalled $6.51 billion in 2001) back into Ethiopia.

Nestle’s retreat in 2002 was a great example of why we shouldn’t underestimate the role played by civil society in tackling global problems.

On campus too there are plenty of opportunities to contribute. A range of societies, fundraisers, political parties and campaigning organisations frequently seek student support for their causes. Anyone who spends time in the library would have noticed the various societies and charities that set up stalls outside, campaigning on a range of subjects.

Students have more opportunities than most to enhance awareness and have their say on an issue. At the first Warwick International Development Summit, participants discussed the best ways to address and reduce global inequality. Can any one course of action be said to be more effective than the others?

The progress up until now has been a product of the actions of governments, companies and civil society. And ultimately, the impact that all these groups have is determined by the actions of individuals, and by the decisions that we take in our day-to-day lives.

It all boils down to the choices we make. Who to vote for, what to buy, and when to act. As tempting as it might be to entrust the future of the world’s poorest to men in suits, there’s plenty we can do.

Written for the Warwick Boar with Julie and Carole Biau, 27th November 2006 

January 2022

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Dec |  Today  |
               1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Search this blog



Most recent comments

  • An excellent blog Simon. I am looking forward to seeing 'Outfoxed' quite a lot now. Hope you keep th… by on this entry

Blog archive

RSS2.0 Atom
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder