|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 12, 2021 0:08:35 GMT
Just read that Mike Pence is considering running to be President of an increasingly surreal USA. That could take boredom to new heights. Pence is betting on Trump not running as Trump would beat him every time. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 12, 2021 0:10:36 GMT
js Yes, I was thinking of 'work' in the sense of bring good for the country, but here's one policy that might interest you. By the way I'm not a member of the party, just interested. "Lift higher rate tax threshold to £70,000 from £50,000 today; flat 40% tax rate above £70,000" Totally insane policy. How would the government raise essential revenue? We would be seeing the government deficit getting wider and wider and fall deeper and deeper in debt. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,586
|
Post by Danny on Dec 12, 2021 0:14:04 GMT
EOR Prior experience of coronavirus is that they mutate into minor respiratory problems ie colds. There is really no reason to anticipate that covid 19 will be any different. That's a good point. Someone posted an article on viral mutation which I commented on. It also discussed how some viruses mutate milder and some dont. But that seemed bound up with their method of spreading. It would be reasonable to expect covid to go the same way as other viruses which spread the same way. The optimum solution for it therefore would be mild disease. As to hyperbole I don't keep saying it's all over. I have said time after time the restrictions aren't helping, we should encourage the young to catch it. and then it would end by itself. Which could have happened 2020. They have still caught it anyway, but so slowly at enormous cost. In SA the young have pretty much all caught it. (under 50s). In the UK sage reckoned 50% of under 20 had caught it by last summer, so an awful lot will have done so by now. The concern is we may have damaged our population's immune status by vaccinating too many and not letting them catch it. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,774
|
Post by steve on Dec 12, 2021 0:14:23 GMT
From tomorrow's Observer
"Labour surged into a commanding nine-point lead over the Tories this weekend as controversies over rule-breaking Christmas parties at Downing Street and Tory sleaze plunged Boris Johnson into a battle to save his premiership.
The latest Opinium poll for the Observer also shows 57% of voters think Johnson should now resign, up nine points from a fortnight ago, as the prime minister appears to be haemorrhaging public support.
Johnson’s personal ratings have fallen to -35%, down 14 points from what was already a record low of -21% two weeks ago.
Asked which of three Covid-19 related scandals had shocked them more – the No 10 staff Christmas party last year, the Dominic Cummings trip to Barnard Castle or the Matt Hancock/Gina Coladangelo affair, the Downing Street party comfortably topped the list.
Advertisement
Fifty-one percent of people polled said they found that event most shocking, following by 28% for the Cummings trip and 21% for the Hancock controversy.
Adam Drummond of Opinium said the fall was “devastating” and noted that high numbers of Conservatives had moved to the undecided column. While he said Johnson was known for comebacks and Labour was by no means free of problems of its own, Drummond added that “unless the Conservatives can turn these numbers around quickly, backbenchers might start asking if the party is over for the prime minister”.
The poll puts Labour on 41%, with its nine-point lead being the biggest Opinium has recorded since 2014. The Tories are now on 32%, their lowest score since 2019, while the Liberal Democrats are on 9% (+1), the SNP 5% (unchanged) and the Greens 5% (-1). "
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,586
|
Post by Danny on Dec 12, 2021 0:18:49 GMT
Totally insane policy. How would the government raise essential revenue? We would be seeing the government deficit getting wider and wider and fall deeper and deeper in debt. Surely the purpose of brexit was the destruction of the uk as a functional nation. Further reducing revenue fits right in. If you make a list of everything russia might have wished to happen to the UK, then you can pick a new policy goal. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 12, 2021 0:24:08 GMT
What worries me as an anti-Tory supporter (I don't identify with any party) is that we have been here before and a change of leader then miraculously transformed Tory fortunes. It happened when Major took over from Thatcher, when Cameron took over from Howard and when Johnson took over from May. The Tories are good at winning - that's all they care about. Labour, on the other hand, is always navel gazing. The only glimmer of hope is that the motley crowd around Johnson are, on the whole, even more incompetent than Johnson himself, which is quite an achievement. Only Sunak appears to be the exception to the rule, but I wonder how many Tory supporters are ready for an Asian prime minister.
|
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 12, 2021 0:29:50 GMT
Totally insane policy. How would the government raise essential revenue? We would be seeing the government deficit getting wider and wider and fall deeper and deeper in debt. Surely the purpose of brexit was the destruction of the uk as a functional nation. Further reducing revenue fits right in. If you make a list of everything russia might have wished to happen to the UK, then you can pick a new policy goal. The purpose of Brexit, from the brexiter perspective, was to make Britain independent from EU rules and regulations so that our wildly dynamic economy would take off like a rocket. Of course, this was utter nonsense as anyone with rudimentary economics knowledge will tell you, but enough people were fooled because the pro-Brexit leadership (Farage etc) dressed all of this up as a patriotic crusade against interfering foreigners. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,586
|
Post by Danny on Dec 12, 2021 0:34:37 GMT
While criticising that downing street ignored it's own rules about covid restictions, no one seems to be considering the extent to which other companies have all done the same. An awful lot of people must have concluded the rules have been very contrived and frankly stupid. If you are mixing with people all day in sanctioned settings, it really doesn't change the risk if you also have a party.
It really only changes the risk if you mix with a new set of people, so your friends, or relatives, instead of colleagues.
While injecting this note of common sense into the conversation, I'd also go back where I began, that the rules are very arbitrary. Sweden didn't bother telling anyone to isolate except those with actual symptoms and while they had those symptoms. Worked out better than test and trace and obviously massively cheaper.
The whole test and trace program was a vast and costly mistake pushed by cummings. Although he blamed hancock for its failure, in reality it failed because it was too small scale, despite doing billions of tests. Resources did not exist to expand it enough. Hancock too was in reality a believer and pushed this pointless waste.
Ironically you can just see Boris sitting there surrounded by zealots thinking he is the only sane man in the asylum of people who believe they can rewrite how to manage an epidemic. They failed, just made matters worse.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Dec 12, 2021 0:35:01 GMT
Danny
"Surely the purpose of brexit was the destruction of the uk as a functional nation."
Even if you meant "functional state", that would suggest a vast conspiracy of people like Mercian, whose purpose was to destroy the UK (and Mercia in the process).
There were lots of purposes behind Brexit, and to present that movement as even remotely coherent is hyperbole.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,586
|
Post by Danny on Dec 12, 2021 0:46:55 GMT
The only goal likely to be achieved by brexit is the destruction of the uk, so occams razor says that was the real purpose
|
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 12, 2021 0:51:36 GMT
Oh, I thought you were a Labour supporter - maybe I'm mixing you up with someone else because you seem to be far Right. Immigration will never be reduced for the simple reason that jobs need to be filled, and if no one wants a given job then it needs to go to a qualified immigrant - simple as that. The reason Britain had minimal immigration in the decades prior to 1948 was because of high unemployment in the years after WW1 (1921 onwards) and also underemployment (i.e. overqualified people filling certain jobs). The great depression made a bad situation even worse. Your comment about people making their own destiny is all well and good so long as they are able to do so - many people are locked into a cycle of poverty due to circumstances beyond their control (e.g. disability). The current British welfare state provides a pitiful safety net - £75 a week of jobseeker's allowance hardly offers a 'lifestyle choice'! This is the lowest unemployment benefit of any OECD country, and our insulting state pension of £9,339 a year is also the lowest in the OECD. These figures are nothing less than disgraceful and yet nothing has been done about this for years and years, despite various government of one political persuasion or another. All this while the richest in society have kept getting richer and richer. That's an interesting definition of 'far right'. Over 50% of UK population support the death penalty for some crimes. yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-death-penalty-be-reintroduced-for-terrorist-murder-actsAs for not working www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/economicinactivity/articles/despiterecordemploymentnearly10ofadultshaveneverdonepaidwork/2019-02-28We seem to agree about immigration which is good. But let's not try to classify each other into opposing tribes. There are some folks on here that I agree with more than others, but a civil discussion without labelling each other is beneficial to all. The death penalty is a grotesquely archaic way of inflicting punishment, even on the most reprehensible of criminals. It's a punishment that is entirely focused on retribution to the exclusion of anything else, designed to satisfy the basic emotion of revenge instead of administering justice. Many people support it because of the natural emotion of anger whenever a child is murdered or there has been a terrorist attack with multiple victims. The same emotion of revenge justified the mass carpet bombing of enemy cities in WW2 even if it meant the death of thousands of non-combatant individuals such as women, children and the elderly. The problem with punishing violence with more violence is that it does nothing to deter a potential murderer - most murderers are psychopaths who don't care about the consequences of their actions as long as they have exercised their power to kill the object(s) of their hatred/anger. Life imprisonment is a more effective punishment because it forces the murderer to reflect on what he did and he is reminded of that every single day of the rest of his life. Also, it allows for the possibility that someone who has acknowledged his terrible crime and genuinely repented for his actions may be offered the possibility of release, so long as there is incontrovertible evidence that the individual is a reformed character. Obviously this is not possible in many cases and in such cases a 'full life' term is justified. As for immigration, I am a realist, though this does not mean that I welcome immigration for its own sake. In an ideal world, immigration should not be necessary, but in order to keep the economy moving it needs to happen - simple as that. That said, there are profound social consequences to immigration and this factor needs to be considered very carefully. |
|
|
|
Post by t7g4 on Dec 12, 2021 0:58:13 GMT
What worries me as an anti-Tory supporter (I don't identify with any party) is that we have been here before and a change of leader then miraculously transformed Tory fortunes. It happened when Major took over from Thatcher, when Cameron took over from Howard and when Johnson took over from May. The Tories are good at winning - that's all they care about. Labour, on the other hand, is always navel gazing. The only glimmer of hope is that the motley crowd around Johnson are, on the whole, even more incompetent than Johnson himself, which is quite an achievement. Only Sunak appears to be the exception to the rule, but I wonder how many Tory supporters are ready for an Asian prime minister. I don’t think Sunak will have any issues being accepted by Tory supporters. The party needs a competent leader. A commentator on here mentioned that the Tories could end up reverting to the mid 30s range 2010-2015 GE. 2024 Prediction unless the next leader cuts through. Conservatives: 37% Labour 34% Lib Dems: 8% Greens: 5% Reform:7% SNP: 5% Others: 4% |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 12, 2021 1:00:35 GMT
Danny "Surely the purpose of brexit was the destruction of the uk as a functional nation." Even if you meant "functional state", that would suggest a vast conspiracy of people like Mercian, whose purpose was to destroy the UK (and Mercia in the process). There were lots of purposes behind Brexit, and to present that movement as even remotely coherent is hyperbole. Indeed. If you look at the Brexit movement the supporters were composed of people from widely diverse backgrounds: English/British nationalists, neo-Nazis/racists, libertarian capitalists, far-left socialists/anarchists, anti-government individualists, and various micro-groups of one kind or another. Normally these political groups would be at each other's throats most of the time but somehow they converged on their common hatred of the EU. The genius of Cummings is that he managed to forge a coalition of opposites to achieve one objective: Brexit. Cameron's gamble in calling the referendum was logical in the sense that he believed that the 'sensible majority' would accept EU membership as necessary and positive for the nation, but he hugely underestimated the effectiveness of the pro-Brexit campaign and the apathy of many 'sensible' people who chose not to vote in the expectation of a foregone conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 12, 2021 1:01:23 GMT
Yvette Cooper is a long way from where I'd like to see the only party with any chance of defeating the Tories where I live, but she's sharp as a knife and the only one at the moment I can imagine performing well not only against Johnson, but also wherever succeeds him. Unfortunately, she seems to have no hunger for the role. I suspect the problem is more that after only getting 17% in 2015 she feels the party has no hunger for her. Perhaps her views aren't 'pure' enough? That sort of thing never bothers the Tories. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 12, 2021 1:02:42 GMT
What worries me as an anti-Tory supporter (I don't identify with any party) is that we have been here before and a change of leader then miraculously transformed Tory fortunes. It happened when Major took over from Thatcher, when Cameron took over from Howard and when Johnson took over from May. The Tories are good at winning - that's all they care about. Labour, on the other hand, is always navel gazing. The only glimmer of hope is that the motley crowd around Johnson are, on the whole, even more incompetent than Johnson himself, which is quite an achievement. Only Sunak appears to be the exception to the rule, but I wonder how many Tory supporters are ready for an Asian prime minister. I don’t think Sunak will have any issues being accepted by Tory supporters. The party needs a competent leader. A commentator on here mentioned that the Tories could end up reverting to the mid 30s range 2010-2015 GE. 2024 Prediction unless the next leader cuts through. Conservatives: 37% Labour 34% Lib Dems: 8% Greens: 5% Reform:7% SNP: 5% Others: 4% We'll see. Don't forget that the 'Indian doctor' image of Sunak may be reassuring to the middle class and middle aged voters but his wealth and privilege (and in some cases ethnicity) may put off working class Tories. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Dec 12, 2021 1:06:22 GMT
The only goal likely to be achieved by brexit is the destruction of the uk, so occams razor says that was the real purpose Occam's razor - "the principle that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary." Assuming purpose from an assumption on outcome, requires two assumptions - neither of which is necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Dec 12, 2021 1:06:40 GMT
EOR While Danny is inclined to hyperbole compared to the excessive scare mongering of the media and their favoured agent of doom Neil Ferguson , there's an element of truth in that. Prior experience of coronavirus is that they mutate into minor respiratory problems ie colds. There is really no reason to anticipate that covid 19 will be any different. It's early days regarding the omicron variant but that real world data that is available points to a virulence rate rather lower than seasonal influenza. We don't destroy our economy or preventative health services for the flu proportion is important. I agree with all of that. My point was noting a correlation between his tendency to declare it Over and things promptly getting worse. As to your own position I do agree that some of the very recent data from South Africa is relatively encouraging - obviously if it were still growing at 400% per week that would be much worse than simply doubling. I think the key questions that remain tho are whether there's any differential impact when the very recent case surge amongst younger people inevitably spreads to older people, whether the extremely high positivity rate alec was quoting indicates that cases have temporarily outstripped their ability to test for them, and what impact (if any) we see when these many tens of thousands of surge cases start feeding through into the death stats over the next week or two. In terms of relevance to the UK, I think all of the above apply, plus the question of what will the practical impacts be of a relatively mild (but easily spread and somewhat vaccine evasive) form of COVID, besides exotic spresms for Danny. Mild in this context seems to imply less likelihood to need hospital treatment (or perhaps more accurately ICU treatment within hospital) but still notable illness - what happens if it spreads rapidly through the ICU team and they all have to take a few days off in the space of a fortnight? And that's before more logistical concerns like impact on distribution, transport, education etc. 2% of people being off sick at any one time is priced in to the way businesses and public sector bodies operate, if that becomes 5% for a couple of weeks, we'd have real problems. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 12, 2021 1:14:51 GMT
js Maybe, but they're not doing it. Tories have frozen tax allowance for next few years, RefUK want to raise it to £20000 for instance. Whether this and other policies would actually work is another matter, but it is a threat to the Tories. Some policies seem a bit lefty to me, like nationalising energy companies. reformparty.uk/reformisessential/ Wow! Lefty policies!! I bet you browned your trousers when you saw them. You do have some strange fantasies. All parties have some policies I agree with and some I don't. At an election I try to decide which has the biggest plurality of those I agree with (and think are achievable) and those I don't. In local elections sometimes other factors come into play such as the personality/personal enthusiasms of the candidates. There is no party that exactly matches my aspirations, as I expect is true of most thinking people. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Dec 12, 2021 1:16:22 GMT
I suspect the problem is more that after only getting 17% in 2015 she feels the party has no hunger for her. Perhaps her views aren't 'pure' enough? That sort of thing never bothers the Tories. I was thinking more in human terms - to put yourself out there and be comprehensively rejected has a psychological cost for most people, at least for most people who aren't Ken Clarke. Why put yourself through it a second time unless you're *really* sure you'd win this time? |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 12, 2021 1:20:52 GMT
js Yes, I was thinking of 'work' in the sense of bring good for the country, but here's one policy that might interest you. By the way I'm not a member of the party, just interested. "Lift higher rate tax threshold to £70,000 from £50,000 today; flat 40% tax rate above £70,000" Totally insane policy. How would the government raise essential revenue? We would be seeing the government deficit getting wider and wider and fall deeper and deeper in debt. That is assuming that the 'cake' remains the same size, which seems to be a common error amongst left-leaning people. I understand that the reasoning is that lower tax (on companies as well) will stimulate growth and reduce tax avoidance. This may or may not work, but it's a refreshingly different approach to the old ConLabLib consensus. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 12, 2021 1:25:51 GMT
The only goal likely to be achieved by brexit is the destruction of the uk, so occams razor says that was the real purpose Utter codswallop. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 12, 2021 1:31:38 GMT
That's an interesting definition of 'far right'. Over 50% of UK population support the death penalty for some crimes. The death penalty is a grotesquely archaic way of inflicting punishment, even on the most reprehensible of criminals. It's a punishment that is entirely focused on retribution to the exclusion of anything else, designed to satisfy the basic emotion of revenge instead of administering justice. Many people support it because of the natural emotion of anger whenever a child is murdered or there has been a terrorist attack with multiple victims. The same emotion of revenge justified the mass carpet bombing of enemy cities in WW2 even if it meant the death of thousands of non-combatant individuals such as women, children and the elderly. Just because you have arguments against capital punishment doesn't mean that you can classify support for it as a 'far right' view when over 50% of the population support it in some circumstances. Unless, of course you think that over 50% of the UK population are 'far right' by your definition. Mine would be that far right means something way beyond the usual view in the population - death penalty for parking in a disabled spot for instance. 🙂 |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 12, 2021 1:36:08 GMT
Cameron's gamble in calling the referendum was logical in the sense that he believed that the 'sensible majority' would accept EU membership as necessary and positive for the nation, but he hugely underestimated the effectiveness of the pro-Brexit campaign and the apathy of many 'sensible' people who chose not to vote in the expectation of a foregone conclusion. Cameron was forced into it. He made a 'cast-iron' guarantee of a referendum that he broke. Then UKIP became even stronger, taking many votes from the Tories and in (I think, because there's been so many GEs lately) 2015 UKIP finished 2nd in over 100 seats. He had no option. (N.B. Sorry about the multiple posts. On the old site it seemed to be easier to combine multiple answers into a single post in my intermittent visits. I expect I'll get the hang of it eventually.) |
|
|
|
Post by jayblanc on Dec 12, 2021 1:53:44 GMT
While criticising that downing street ignored it's own rules about covid restictions, no one seems to be considering the extent to which other companies have all done the same. An awful lot of people must have concluded the rules have been very contrived and frankly stupid. If you are mixing with people all day in sanctioned settings, it really doesn't change the risk if you also have a party. It really only changes the risk if you mix with a new set of people, so your friends, or relatives, instead of colleagues. While injecting this note of common sense into the conversation, I'd also go back where I began, that the rules are very arbitrary. Sweden didn't bother telling anyone to isolate except those with actual symptoms and while they had those symptoms. Worked out better than test and trace and obviously massively cheaper. The whole test and trace program was a vast and costly mistake pushed by cummings. Although he blamed hancock for its failure, in reality it failed because it was too small scale, despite doing billions of tests. Resources did not exist to expand it enough. Hancock too was in reality a believer and pushed this pointless waste. Ironically you can just see Boris sitting there surrounded by zealots thinking he is the only sane man in the asylum of people who believe they can rewrite how to manage an epidemic. They failed, just made matters worse. This "Well, if it's just the people you normally have in the office, it's fine" thing is a fallacy that hugely annoys me, in that it is trivial to dismiss if you think about it for a moment. Sure, *you* are just meeting with *your* colleagues. To you that appears to be a limited isolated list. But then some of your colleagues are going to meet other different sets of colleagues that aren't in your set. And they meet their own different set of colleagues. And those colleagues will have colleagues of their own... And so spread starts up again. And this is *OBSERVABLE IN REAL WORLD PRACTICE*. As soon as restrictions lifted, cases spiked. 'Meetings of Colleagues' where these rules weren't in place, quickly became the origins of super-spreader events, one example being The US White House superspreader event. |
|
|
|
Post by robert on Dec 12, 2021 5:38:34 GMT
Mercian
<I>"All parties have some policies I agree with and some I don't. At an election I try to decide which has the biggest plurality of those I agree with (and think are achievable) and those I don't. In local elections sometimes other factors come into play such as the personality/personal enthusiasms of the candidates. There is no party that exactly matches my aspirations, as I expect is true of most thinking people."</I>
I would wholeheartedly agree. Whilst I tend to vote Tory, I certainly don't agree with all their policies and other parties usually have some agreeable (to me) policies. The overriding issue for me however, has always been equality of opportunity for all, rather than envy taxation on those who succeed.
<I>"Just because you have arguments against capital punishment doesn't mean that you can classify support for it as a 'far right' view when over 50% of the population support it in some circumstances. Unless, of course you think that over 50% of the UK population are 'far right' by your definition. Mine would be that far right means something way beyond the usual view in the population - death penalty for parking in a disabled spot for instance. </I> 🙂"
That's a little extreme imv. Perhaps amputation of a leg would be more reasonable, so the miscreant could properly appreciate the disabled issue?🙈
|
|
|
|
Post by robert on Dec 12, 2021 5:39:32 GMT
Ah, so HTML doesn't work on here then?
|
|
|
|
Post by js on Dec 12, 2021 6:04:23 GMT
Depends on the definition of “working” I would guess. Certainly raising the tax allowance to 20K would “work” for me as I would probably pay less tax. Whether that would be be beneficial for the country as a whole is less clear. What would be an absolute whopper for me would be a reduction on the taper above 100k for the personal allowance but I don’t think that’s going to be taken up as a major policy anytime soon. So you're admitting you earn considerably more than £100k a year. Lucky for some. Oh indeed. Quite why is a mystery to me. It appears to have something to do with having once broken into that barrier. It made me confident that I could apply for positions advertising that sort of wage and, lo and behold, I keep getting them, barely any questions asked. Another example of how screwed up the world is. The work that I do appears to me rather banal and certainly not on a par with that of a nurse, teacher or even carer and yet I command many times their salary. Bonkers! (Edited to correct low and behold to lo and behold. I will now hang my head in shame) |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Dec 12, 2021 6:25:23 GMT
Ah, so HTML doesn't work on here then? You can however select the italics button in the create post screen if that helps Robert. (And there are superscript buttons etc.) |
|
|
|
Post by robert on Dec 12, 2021 6:39:34 GMT
Ah, so HTML doesn't work on here then? You can however select the italics button in the create post screen if that helps Robert. (And there are superscript buttons etc.) Ah extra buttons when you click on Reply, rather than Quick reply. So many features. Thanks Carfrew👍 |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Dec 12, 2021 6:42:02 GMT
Conspiracy fuel in the Times…
“Two years after victims of a mystery illness began arriving at hospitals in the Chinese city of Wuhan, the infection of a researcher in a Taiwanese laboratory has raised questions about the origins of the pandemic.
The lab worker, who tested positive on Thursday for the Delta variant, had been bitten by a mouse infected with the coronavirus for experiments at a high-biosecurity facility in Taipei, the island’s capital.
Taiwan has had no domestic transmissions for more than a month, and the infected woman, who is in her twenties and double-vaccinated, has not travelled abroad recently.
Health investigators believe that the researcher caught the virus at work at the Academia Sinica, Taiwan’s leading research institute. That reinforces the theory that the pandemic was caused by a similar lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
“If the lab worker is confirmed to have been infected at her workplace, then this will add credibility to the lab leak theory,” said Yanzhong Huang, a Chinese public health expert at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank.“
|
|
