64 3 mins 10 yrs

James Delingpole asks a pertinent question;

Should juries in criminal trials be allowed to consult ouija boards, chicken entrails or tea leaves before deciding on their verdicts? Is it OK to convict someone on the basis that he looks a bit funny?

This relates to the collapse of the trial of Vicky Pryce at Southwark Crown Court which has cost the taxpayer a cool £6 million. Sure it’s only money, right?

“After 30 years of criminal trials I have never come across this at this late stage. Never,” said Mr Justice Sweeney after reluctantly discharging a jury which had told him it was “highly unlikely” to reach a verdict on whether or not Vicky Pryce had been guilty of perverting the course of justice.

You can appreciate his exasperation. The judge no doubt had delivered as comprehensive and balanced a summing-up of the case as anyone is capable of after three decades as a lawyer.

And here were the supposed bedrock of the English legal system – 12 jurors – telling him after all that time, effort and cost to the taxpayer that they didn’t even understand basic concepts such as “reasonable doubt”.  “A reasonable doubt is a doubt that is reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law does not allow me to help you with,” replied the judge to question four (out of 10 the jurors had submitted). Then there was arguably the most stupid question of the lot which the jurors had asked in all seriousness:

“Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it?”

In other words: is it OK if we just guess? “The answer is a firm no,” responded the judge, “because it would be completely contrary to the instructions I have given you.”

The fiasco has inevitably prompted much debate as to whether it’s finally time to call it quits on the jury system.

I think the Jury system has been horrendously compromised in the name of “equality” and so we now face judgement by people incapable of distinguishing between evidence and stuff they just think up. Further, their grasp of the nuances of English are a concern. . There has been a rush by our liberal intelligentsia to suggest this Jury has been supernaturally stupid and is purely a one off.

I don’t buy that. And, when liberals get their way and the voting age is reduced to 16, you can look forward to your fate being placed in THEIR hands. Feel good?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

64 thoughts on “12 GOOD MEN AND TRUE

  1. Getting 12 people from the general public and asking them to deliberate over a trial is as stupid and pointless as asking the general public to choose a government. Most of them are like sheep to a dip so are incapable of grasping the arguments of an adversarial process.

  2. I have only served on a jury once. I didn’t enjoy it. There are some technicalities and circumstances which are beyond the average person’s ability to make an informed judgement on.
    I think the whole thing needs overhauling.
    ot
    Allan did you phone in to Radio 5Live this morning? There was an Allan from Scotland on.

  3. Jury trial is a farce. They should replace it with the much superior continental system of a sitting panel of judges.

    //circumstances which are beyond the average person’s ability to make an informed judgement on.//

    How do you know? 🙂

  4. I think the Jury system has been horrendously compromised in the name of “equality” and so we now face judgement by people incapable of distinguishing between evidence and stuff they just think up

    What an incrediblly pompous comment.

  5. //What an incrediblly pompous comment.//

    Still, it does show why trial by jury is and has always been a bad system.

    Agit8ed, I admire anyone who can take a joke.
    I’m surprised you didn’t discuss each case with that long-suffering wife of yours until it became clear to you. Actually, I always imagine you as a kind of Father William as in that Lewis Carroll doggerel:

    You are old,” said the youth, “And your jaws are too weak
    For anything tougher than suet;
    Yet you finished the goose, with the bones and the beak —
    Pray, how did you manage to do it?”

    “In my youth,” said his father, “I took to the law,
    And argued each case with my wife;
    And the muscular strength which it gave to my jaw,
    Has lasted the rest of my life.”

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/You_Are_Old,_Father_William

  6. Noel,
    the man who refuses to acknowledge his areas of weakness or ignorance is a fool.
    I always talk things over with Mrs Agit8ed, after all she has a degree, she is reflective and she loves me to pieces..
    Understandable of course.

    I like that poem. There used to be a poetry text book which contained that and this one..

    Macavity – the Mystery Cat, by T.S. Eliot
    Macavity’s a Mystery Cat: he’s called the Hidden Paw –
    For he’s the master criminal who can defy the Law.
    He’s the bafflement of Scotland Yard, the Flying Squad’s despair:
    For when they reach the scene of crime – Macavity’s not there!

    Macavity, Macavity, there’s no one like Macavity,
    He’s broken every human law, he breaks the law of gravity.
    His powers of levitation would make a fakir stare,
    And when you reach the scene of crime – Macavity’s not there!
    You may seek him in the basement, you may look up in the air –
    But I tell you once and once again, Macavity’s not there!

    Mcavity’s a ginger cat, he’s very tall and thin;
    You would know him if you saw him, for his eyes are sunken in.
    His brow is deeply lined with thought, his head is highly domed;
    His coat is dusty from neglect, his whiskers are uncombed.
    He sways his head from side to side, with movements like a snake;
    And when you think he’s half asleep, he’s always wide awake.

    Macavity, Macavity, there’s no one like Macavity,
    For he’s a fiend in feline shape, a monster of depravity.
    You may meet him in a by-street, you may see him in the square –
    But when a crime’s discovered, then Macavity’s not there!

    He’s outwardly respectable. (They say he cheats at cards.)
    And his footprints are not found in any file of Scotland Yard’s.
    And when the larder’s looted, or the jewel-case is rifled,
    Or when the milk is missing, or another Peke’s been stifled,
    Or the greenhouse glass is broken, and the trellis past repair –
    Ay, there’s the wonder of the thing! Macavity’s not there!

    And when the Foreign Office find a Treaty’s gone astray,
    Or the Admiralty lose some plans and drawings by the way,
    There may be a scrap of paper in the hall or on the stair –
    But it’s useless to investigate – Mcavity’s not there!
    And when the loss has been disclosed, the Secret Service say:
    `It must have been Macavity!’ – but he’s a mile away.
    You’ll be sure to find him resting, or a-licking of his thumbs,
    Or engaged in doing complicated long-division sums.

    Macavity, Macavity, there’s no one like Macavity,
    There never was a Cat of such deceitfulness and suavity.
    He always has an alibi, and one or two to spaer:
    At whatever time the deed took place – MACAVITY WASN’T THERE!
    And they say that all the Cats whose wicked deeds are widely known
    (I might mention Mungojerrie, I might mention Griddlebone)
    Are nothing more than agents for the Cat who all the time
    Just controls their operations: the Napoleon of Crime!

  7. “What an incrediblly pompous comment.”

    But not wrong. This is what state uneducation has done. The idea that a dozen average people could not understand a very simple case such as this would have been absurd until quite recently.

    I popped into Currys for a memory stick today. Asked the sales assistant if one brand is better than another, or “whether it’s much of a muchness”.

    She said: “Erm, I suppose we don’t have much in stock right now.”

    That’s what happens when government takes over education. You end up with a nation of morons and thickos.

  8. There are many trials whose ultimate cause is the Drugs War.

    And every jury trial is a de facto imprisonment of the jurors.

    Another reason to rethink your War on Drugs.

  9. The jury system is certainly flawed, and always has been. Juries can be stupid, or can be threatened. However, judges can be corrupt, or bribed. The problem with a judge-only system is that the state accuses, the state prosecutes, the state judges the guilt/innocence, and the state passes sentence. And if a certain outcome is required for political reasons, there’s nothing standing in the state’s way of getting the outcome it wants.
    At least a civilian jury offers some limited protection or counter-balance against that, the way I see it.

  10. Again Pete,
    it is hard to argue with your experiences. I find it quite amazing how ignorant some youngsters are and how much they don’t care that they are ignorant!

  11. Tom raises a good point.

    I focus on the danger of ” jury nullification ” as in the OJ case, where they just ignored the facts, or the deep stupidity of many jurors in criminal and civil cases, but yes, the involvement of those who aren’t part of the state structure probably prevents injustices or some of them.

  12. Tom Tyler –

    The case for jury trials is unimpeachable, even though they’re flawed.

    As you say, the state investigates us, charges us, prosecutes us and tries us. But with trial by jury only our peers can condemn us.

    No wonder authoritarians have always tried to do away with it.

  13. Phantom –

    Jury nullification is a great and wonderful thing. The danger is not in nullification, but in societies which become balkanised to the extent that people will make grave decisions on how the accused looks.

    Would you want to be judged by people like you? Or by people who think of you as different? Exactly.

  14. But jury trials -do- mean state imprisonment of the jurors- which is not hyperbole, it is what happens.

    Especially in cases where the trials are long, especially when the jury is sequestered and the members cannot return home or even make an unmonitored call to the family until the trial has ended.

    This mandatory jury service always been very disturbing to me.

  15. Phantom –

    Yes, and the state has no right to do so. Juroes should be composed of those who are willing to do it.

    Needless to say, juries should also be limited to property owners.

  16. Phantom –

    “I would want juries who interpret the law correctly.”

    But what if the law’s an ass? No, the judge can interpret the law, but if it’s an ass then a jury should acquit, no matter what the law says.

    It’s an extremely important balwark against tyranny. No wonder most people have probably never heard of it.

  17. “Needless to say, juries should also be limited to property owners.”

    What about property owners who refuse to pay their tv licences?
    Automatic disqualification?

  18. Phantom –

    Laws which are unjust should ignored and nullified. Many wicked things have been done which were mandated by law. That they were lawful does not make them any less wicked.

  19. “Juries should be composed of those who are willing to do it”

    I was just pondering over that whole aspect, ie, the fact that it doesn’t seem to resemble anything like a voluntary transaction benefiting both sides. The state compels the jurors to come to the court, then the judge tells them how, and upon what criteria, they must make their decision. It’s all one-way.
    If I were called to do JS, there’s a small part of me which would want to say, “listen, you forced me to come here without offering any incentive in return (indeed, possibly putting me at risk of revenge once Mr Bird gets out of bird), so you can just jolly well accept my verdict without questioning how I arrived at it. That’s the payback”.

  20. (meant to add: however, it would only be a small part of me that would have that thought, I wouldn’t act in that manner if I was called).

    O/T: This thread calls to mind one of my favourite episodes of the 1975 BBC cult show ‘Survivors’ – if you fancy enjoying a gripping piece of classic 70’s UK TV drama, watch the episode here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QnmRx2Crq4

  21. //The problem with a judge-only system is that the state accuses, the state prosecutes, the state judges the guilt//

    //As you say, the state investigates us, charges us, prosecutes us and tries us. //

    Not so. As I’ve told you already, the systems is most continental countries, while different, are almost all superior to the Anglo-American arrangement. There, trials are before a panel of judges, comprising usually a chairman appointed by the (yes, independent) judiciary, and a few honorary judges. These are usually retired or active merchants, owners of businesses, board presidents or CEOs of companies or similar, chairman of a guild etc. They are appointed by various organisations, usually the chamber of commerce, trade or guild associations. Usually people are picked who have some background relating to the case being tried.

    How just and effective court forms are can best be judged by how rarely they convict the innocent and fail to convict the guilty. How often the acquit a man the government would like to have prosecuted is also a good yardstick.
    By these standards, the continental courts (NL, Germany, CH, Austria, Belgium) definitely appear to have an advantage over their British and US counterparts. The local media are just as vigilant as elsewhere and those scary stories of wrongful convictions/acquitals just don’t seem to be near as frequent – no OJSs, no Birmingham Sixes,…

    And common sense should tell you why. That remark above about the jury system being “horrendously compromised in the name of “equality”” just shows how unjust it always was. Nobody wants to be tried by a group of people who know nothing about the case, law or often indeed life. In former days, to use Pope’s phrase, wretches would hang that jurymen may dine, later people up on a range of charges based on political acts faced packed conservative juries, then working class lads were tried by a dozen social snobs. Everybody except conservatives was complaining then, and if it’s the other way round now, well, it could hardly have happened to a better set of people.

  22. Noel Cunningham –

    “As I’ve told you already, the systems is most continental countries, while different, are almost all superior to the Anglo-American arrangement.”

    Yet while the Anglosphere is synonymous with liberty, every continental country has known state tyranny and despotic government in recent human history, most in recent human memory.

    The choice is between the common law right to do anything which is not expressly forbidden, or the continental way of being allowed to do only that which is expressly allowed.

    That’s no choice. Our way is clearly superior.

  23. //every continental country has known state tyranny and despotic government in recent human history, most in recent human memory.//

    Britain was saved from the Nazis by a stretch of water, not by its courts.

  24. “Britain was saved from the Nazis ..”

    But we never chose national socialism. In fact, while many continentals reached out for it, many of us either laughed at it or fought it on the streets.

    The Anglosphere’s ways are superior.

  25. Britain was also saved from the Nazis by some good British soldiers, sailors and airmen, and by a sound political leadership once Churchill got in there.

  26. Yes, the day we lose trial by jury is the day we cross the line into an authoritarian state. In Russia, Putin tells the judge the sentence in sensitive cases like Pussy Riot.

    Tip: if you want to avoid jury service, get off the electoral register 😉

  27. There, trials are before a panel of judges

    Sounds like a superior type of diplock court, I’d still prefer twelve good men and true.

  28. Because people try to avoid jury duty, you often get a few Jerry Springer watchers in there, those who think jury duty is fun as they have nothing else to do.

  29. //Britain was also saved from the Nazis by some good British soldiers, sailors and airmen//

    Phantom, from the way the British fled in rout in 1940 there can be no doubt that the swastika would have been flying from Big Ben if Britain were part of the continental land mass. No army could have withstood the Nazi armies on land at that point in the war, least of all the British.

    //. In fact, while many continentals reached out for it. In fact, while many continentals reached out for it//

    The Channel Islands had common law, jury trials, and roast beef, didn’t they? Yet even these formidable weapons weren’t enough to stop the Nazis invading, and when there they were, by all accounts, welcomed more warmly than almost anywhere else in W Europe.

    Yes, this was for the Germans the Model Occupation, and apparently a majority of these quaint islanders with their “Anglosphere’s ways” collaborated with the Nazi armies, and the 800 German-British children born during or shortly after the occupation are proof of how the islanders were so British that they took a leaf from the Winsors’ book.

  30. A few brave airmen ( not all British, true ) were just enough, at just the right time.

    And British troops played their major part in the rolling back of the Dark Ages.

    Oh yes they did.

  31. Noel Cunningham –

    Well, yes, the Channel Islands were occupied during WW2. Such was the unfortunate circumstance of being too near continentals.

    I hope you don’t mind me pointing out that the photo to which you link is from a 1960s alternative history film called “It Happened Here”, which imagines a successful National Socialist invasion of Britain.

  32. There is no shame in retreating before overwhelming force.

    It is noted that they did move back eastward at the proper time.

  33. //Oh yes they did.//

    Phantom, (just in case you genuinely fail to understand), Pete’s point was that every continental country (he seems to be forgetting Switzerland and Sweden) suffered Nazi or similar occupation, and that Britain didn’t is somehow due to British laws and ways. My point was that Britain would in 1940 have fallen as quickly and completely as Holland or France were it not for the Channel, and as far as I’m concerned there is no serious argument against this assumption and certainly none has been put forward here.

    For example, I can’t see how the fact that British soldiers were present at D-Day is even relevant.

    Britain could not have been saved by the paltry British army, which fled in shock at the first sight of the panzers, and to be honest those jury trials and common law probably wouldn’t have helped much either.

  34. My point is that Britain and the world was saved from the Nazis by a few essential things other than geography. The fighting man played some role.

  35. Hang on hang on, let’s back up the bus.

    This “if it wasn;t for the Channel” business is facetious and shallow.

    In the one major battle between British and German forces in 1940 it was the RAF which prevailed over the Lufwaffe.

    I’ll remind Sun Zhu Cunningham that the Royal Navy was still a mighty beast in 1940, and any attempted invasion would have been very badly mauled. Perhaps fatally so. But the RAF ensured we never got to see.

    And saying we were saved by the Channel is like saying the North Pole is cold because it’s cold. If we were conjoined with Europe (shudder) there might never have been a WW2, or a WW1, or a Franco-Prussian War.

    If we were conjoined with Europe then the entire history of Western Civilisation would have taken some other routes and paths.

  36. Oh jeez Noel.

    I’ve just read your 9.45pm

    It’s as bad as your comment that East German guards decided out of the goodness of their hearts to open border crossings.

    Back out of the thread, do it now.

  37. Noel, you say:

    Yes, this was for the Germans the Model Occupation, and apparently a majority of these quaint islanders with their “Anglosphere’s ways” collaborated with the Nazi armies

    But one of the articles you link to says:

    On islands out of touch with Britain for nearly five years and so heavily occupied that there was more than one German soldier for every two local civilians

    If they were such eager collaborators, why would such and extraordinarily high ratio of soldiers to civilians have been needed?

  38. //In the one major battle between British and German forces in 1940 //

    The British didn’t win a land battle against the Germans until the end of 1942, and the RAF and – dare I laugh? – the Navy didn’t help them in their land encounters in 1940, where apparently all they could do was retreat. In fact, at the Battle of Arras they were saved from total annihilation only by the bravery of the French who moved in to protect them.

    //And saying we were saved by the Channel is like //

    .. is like relevant in response to someone claiming that Britain was saved by its laws and its courts, which is almost as funny as saying it was saved by its land army.

    If there had been no channel to stop the German armies, they would have conquered Britain, unless perhaps they collapsed in laughter and died at the first sight of the British defences.

  39. //If they were such eager collaborators, why would such and extraordinarily high ratio of soldiers to civilians have been needed?//

    Ross, I’ve no idea. But you can be sure the Germans didn’t pump all those troops into a few tiny islands just to keep the natives down.
    By all accounts, there was as much or more collaboration as in many of the other W Europen countries that Pete thinks fell into the Germans’ arms.

    Nice talking to you boys, but I have to go. Goodnight all.

  40. Noel Cunningham –

    Hang on, your history plays you false:

    The British didn’t win a land battle against the Germans until the end of 1942, and the RAF and – dare I laugh? – the Navy didn’t help them in their land encounters in 1940, where apparently all they could do was retreat. In fact, at the Battle of Arras they were saved from total annihilation only by the bravery of the French who moved in to protect them.

    There weren’t many land battles up until 1942, though Arras was certainly one of them, an engagement in which the Germans lost 8 men for one of ours. Of course the French were involved, but then we were over there defending France from your continentials. I’ll note that Arras was a great moment of British heroism and courage, out of which we dug more than most other forces could have.

    I’ll also note that it was at Arras that your continental SS committed the kind of atrocities for which it would become synonymous.

    You really should stop commenting on British affairs. You’re too sour.

  41. This is why I find the sarcastic comments about the French Army to be distasteful – because they are based on lies. After the German breakthrough at Sedan, the French to the south regrouped and prepared to attack northwards. The BEF under Lord Gort in Belgium was asked to attack southwards with protection from the Belgian Army and the French 1st Army. Churchill instructed Gort to agree but then to “advance to the coast” – in effect, abandoning positions and allies and fleeing to Dunkirk for evacuation when the battle had not been joined. The British Army abandoned its allies after two weeks – a national disgrace, if it hadn’t been so heavily suppressed.

  42. I support the jury system as essential, however flawed (show me something invented by man that isn’t flawed). A jury presents a chance to have someone stand between the powers and resources of the State when those powers are being wrongfully applied. Some reforms may be in order, but as systems go I think it is the best.

    More later.

  43. The French fought fiercely at times in North Africa during World War II. Against the British and Americans.

  44. The British army would have been destroyed if it had not retreated to Dunkirk. Many of the soldiers saved in that debacle returned at Normandy four years later. No disgrace, just making the best of a bad job.

  45. mahons – why don’t you have a google for mer-el-kebir where 1300 French sailors were killed by what had been a few weeks previously their ally.

  46. Peter – that the BEF abandoned its defences and allies under instruction from Churchill is a fact. That the man in charge, Lord Gort, did not consider it necessary to abandon said positions and allies is a fact. There was no fight, no battle against the Germans. The Germans were in fact out-numbered in all materiel except aircraft by the French and British. Anything else is mere chit-chat.

  47. Not an answer to my question. Or are you seriously arguing that the Germans could have been held back in 1940?

  48. If there had been a fight, then possibly. One thing was shown for certain – the British Army abandoned its positions and allies under Churchill’s orders then dashed for Dunkirk, blaming the French and Belgians for the debacle which followed. The following years were then used to create a myth which has endured in the mindset of the west.

  49. The British very reluctantly went into WW2. There were a sizeable number of our politicians on all sides and even some Royalty who sought appeasement/accommodation with
    Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
    Our soldiers were brave, our military leadership left something to be desired. IMV complacency and class deference played a part in that. My father had 20 years in the Royal Navy and didn’t have a very high opinion of some of the officers and leadership during ww2.

    Overall I think the Germans had a better military machine led by an evil maniac. (incidentally sycophancy was rife there too)
    Were it not for America, we would have been overrun – as Churchill knew well.
    I think the French had a much more difficult task than us, being such a huge country with a relatively small population. To adequately defend it would have required such a huge and agressive army, the rest of Europe and Great Britain would not have allowed it.
    By all means be proud that we won, but let’s be realistic about the part other nation’s played in that victory.

  50. Agit8ed –

    We are being realistic about the part played by all. The threat of invasion had long passed by the time the US entered the war. In fact the Axis fate had been sealed six months previously when Germany invaded the Soviet Union.

  51. “In fact the Axis fate had been sealed six months previously when Germany invaded the Soviet Union.”
    As I said, led by an evil maniac.
    But they still had a better military machine than us and their men fought bravely too.

  52. I didn’t know your dad was in the war, Agit8ed.
    That’s an honour for you.

    Tell me, what was your job in the RN?

  53. “I didn’t know your dad was in the war, Agit8ed.”

    I’ve told ATWers that quite a few times now.
    For a man who enjoys baiting me, you don’t read very well.
    I wasn’t in the RN, but I went to a boarding school with strong RN connections.
    I’ve told you that too.
    Duh!

  54. Once again, whatever you have been ‘taught’ about recents history, you should review against original source material which is available and thus by-pass the gate-keepers of the official version. Even the official narrative can show the fault lines. For example, we are told that the Battle of Kursk was ‘the death ride of the panzers’ yet before the battle began, the magazine History of the Second World War stated that German forces had 2,700 tanks, SU 3,600. Immediately after Hitler called off the attack to move forces to Italy, the tank balance in the Soviet offensive immediately thereafter was German 2,200 SU 1,800. As a young boy I wondered where had all the Soviet tanks gone and it was only about 5 years ago that I found out in a study by an American officer (David Glanz) that the Germans achieved a kill-ratio of 4-1 at Kursk, the Soviets being saved by the events in Italy.

    More importantly, what happened in June 1941?

    http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/world-war-ii/80/Alleged-Soviet-1941-Plans-to-Attack-Germany

    In Stalin’s Other War, Albert Weeks reviews the currently available information on Soviet military preparations in mid-1941 and ends that there is strong evidence that the Soviet Union was not only preparing for an invasion of Germany, but that such an attack could have occurred as early as July 1941. If this is true, then not only was a Russo-German war a certainty, as each side had concluded privately that successful prosecution of such a conflict was necessary if it was to achieve its national goals, but each party intended to begin the fight in 1941 with a surprise attack against the other.

  55. All Stalin had to do in 1939 was say ‘no’ to a joint attack on Poland and here is why he didn’t:

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n3p40_Michaels.html

    “Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR — the workers’ homeland — that war breaks out between the Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French block. Everything should be done so that this drags out as long as possible with the goal of weakening both sides. For this reason, it is imperative that we agree to conclude the pact proposed by Germany, and then work that this war, which will one day be declared, is carried out after the greatest possible passage of time…”

    – A version of this speech has been known since 1939, but for decades it has been widely dismissed as a fraud. However, in 1994 Russian historians found an authoritative text of it in a special secret Soviet archive, and quickly published it in a prominent Russian scholarly journal, as well as in an academic publication of Novosibirsk University. (note 7) Shortly after this August 1939 speech, von Thadden points out, Stalin ordered a two-year military mobilization plan, a massive project that culminated in the summer of 1941 with powerful Soviet forces poised to strike westwards against Germany and the rest of Europe. –

  56. Allan,
    Well researched.
    Have a break.
    Relax.
    Watch the rugby or something.
    You really need to unwind pal.

  57. //Everything should be done so that this drags out as long as possible with the goal of weakening both sides//

    That isn’t very credible, as the SU encouraged, and in many cases even forced, their people in the various Communist groups in Western Europe to oppose their respective countries fighting the war.

    Many bizarre things happened at that time: one was when Churchill, shortly after the Hitler-Stalin pact and after Germany and the SU had invaded Poland, actually spoke out in support of Stalin signing the pact and saying it was necessary to protect the SU.

Comments are closed.