Horse and Hound 11th June 2009.
This unhelpful and misleading article about coastal access for equestrians seems to imply that the hard working people involved in improving our countryside access have not done enough.
This is simply not true. Baroness Mallalieu, Lord Greaves and Lord Tyler were extremely well briefed by the BHS and the National Federation of Bridleways Associations. They put the case to the Lords for the need to protect our existing access, and the inclusion of equestrians to the coastal margin with great cogency. The amendments which have been made to the Bill as a result of their support do at least represent some progress for horse riders.
Before jumping in to criticise, Horse and Hound would do well to recognise what the equestrian access lobby is actually up against and lend them their support.
Government policy that the scope of the Coastal Access would only apply to walkers, was set in stone as early as 2005 and predated the consultation period. The Minister with responsibility for that decision was Jim Knight, the then Minister for the Horse. What this important sounding post actually entails, is a mystery. Certainly not acting as a champion for equestrian access.
In 2007 a research paper commissioned by Defra was published, the Asken Report into Coastal Access. The Report noted the popularity of horse riding on many beaches around the country. It wisely alerted government to the possible disadvantage to equestrian access of promoting a statutory access on foot only.
As a way of limiting that damage the report recommended that ‘the opportunity could be taken to extend access rights for horses to foreshores and beaches, thereby making a wider range of such areas available for horse riding.’ The report was considered (presumably in some detail) by the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, the then Minister for the Horse Minster Barry Gardiner.
The British Horse Society and the Equestrian Access Forum were in correspondence with Barry Gardiner at that time but still no action was taken to either protect existing equestrian access or to improve it. Lobbying a government which is not prepared to even listen to your concerns is not a rewarding experience but at least the consultation period would offer the equestrian community a chance to have their say.
Of the 35 respondents to the consultation question, whether higher rights should be included, 27 were in favour and only 9 were against. Unfortunately, even this pronounced majority in favour of the inclusion of higher rights was not enough to change the government’s mind. The unchanged Bill rolled on to the Select Committee.
Since the Coastal Access provisions put before the Select Committee excluded horse riders, no representative from the equestrian access lobby was invited to appear. The discussions were almost entirely limited to the concerns of the Ramblers Association and the Country Landowners Association.
However, written evidence from other groups was made available to the Committee. The 19 respondents in favour of including horse riders were characteristically Local Authorities, Local Access Forums and representatives of charitable organisations with an interest in promoting countryside access. 7 of those expressed concern that Natural England had not recognized existing traditional recreational use. Evidence was also received from the four Coastal Access pilot study areas, three of these recommended that horse riders should be included.
Pieces of written evidence against the inclusion of horse riders were slightly fewer, 16 in all. These were mainly from landowners, occupiers or their advisory bodies. The striking point about these responses was that it was not always clear to whether they were referring to the coastal paths, the coastal margin or the foreshore. Only 2 out of a total of 16 respondents against were specifically concerned about horse riders’ current use of the foreshore. Which flags up the fact that amending the Bill to include statutory access to that area, would probably be a popular measure.
So, Amendment 124T, obtained in the House of Lords, which aims to preserve our existing access to the foreshores, was really quite an achievement in the face of such determined opposition from government. That was the first opportunity horse riders have had to express their concerns, which government has done its utmost to suppress.
There is still work to do though. The amendment is worded in very general terms (see below) and the fact that the Bill does not specifically recognize horse riders as legitimate existing users, is a serious omission which needs to be challenged in the House of Commons. It would be most encouraging if Horse and Hound supported this measure.
124T: Clause 293, page 188, line 37, at end insert—
“( ) In section 20 (codes of conduct and other information)—
(a) in subsection (1), omit “and” at the end of paragraph (a) and after paragraph (b) insert
“, and (c) that, in relation to access land which is coastal margin, the public are informed that the right conferred by section 2(1) does not affect any other right of access that may exist in relation to that land.”,
Whereas the amendment tabled by Lord Greaves and Lord Tyler but subsequently withdrawn was more strongly worded:
propose that the CROW Act Schedule 2 be amended by inserting at the end of paragraph 1c, “or in the case of that part of the Coastal Margin land which is foreshore, a dog or a horse.”
Wednesday 24 June 2009
Horse and Hound Comment
“Horseworld misses bridleway and coastal access chances”
Horse and Hound 11th June 2009.This unhelpful and misleading article about coastal access for equestrians seems to imply that the hard working people involved in improving our countryside access have not done enough.
This is simply not true. Baroness Mallalieu, Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor were extremely well briefed by the BHS and the National Federation of Bridleways Associations. They put the case to the Lords for the need to protect our existing access, and the inclusion of equestrians to the coastal margin with great cogency. The amendments which have been made to the Bill as a result of their support do at least represent some progress for horse riders.
Before jumping in to criticise, Horse and Hound would do well to recognise what the equestrian access lobby is actually up against and lend them their support.
Government policy that the scope of the Coastal Access would only apply to walkers, was set in stone as early as 2005 and predated the consultation period. The Minister with responsibility for that decision was Jim Knight, the then Minister for the Horse. What this important sounding post actually entails, is a mystery. Certainly not acting as a champion for equestrian access.
In 2007 a research paper commissioned by Defra was published, the Asken Report into Coastal Access. The Report noted the popularity of horse riding on many beaches around the country. It wisely alerted government to the possible disadvantage to equestrian access of promoting a statutory access on foot only.
As a way of limiting that damage the report recommended that ‘the opportunity could be taken to extend access rights for horses to foreshores and beaches, thereby making a wider range of such areas available for horse riding.’ The report was considered (presumably in some detail) by the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, the then Minister for the Horse Minster Barry Gardiner.
The British Horse Society and the Equestrian Access Forum were in correspondence with Barry Gardiner at that time but still no action was taken to either protect existing equestrian access or to improve it. Lobbying a government which is not prepared to even listen to your concerns is not a rewarding experience but at least the consultation period would offer the equestrian community a chance to have their say.
Of the 35 respondents to the consultation question, whether higher rights should be included, 27 were in favour and only 9 were against. Unfortunately, even this pronounced majority in favour of the inclusion of higher rights was not enough to change the government’s mind. The unchanged Bill rolled on to the Select Committee.
Since the Coastal Access provisions put before the Select Committee excluded horse riders, no representative from the equestrian access lobby was invited to appear. The discussions were almost entirely limited to the concerns of the Ramblers Association and the Country Landowners Association.
However, written evidence from other groups was made available to the Committee. The 19 respondents in favour of including horse riders were characteristically Local Authorities, Local Access Forums and representatives of charitable organisations with an interest in promoting countryside access. 7 of those expressed concern that Natural England had not recognized existing traditional recreational use. Evidence was also received from the four Coastal Access pilot study areas, three of these recommended that horse riders should be included.
Pieces of written evidence against the inclusion of horse riders were slightly fewer, 16 in all. These were mainly from landowners, occupiers or their advisory bodies. The striking point about these responses was that it was not always clear to whether they were referring to the coastal paths, the coastal margin or the foreshore. Only 2 out of a total of 16 respondents against were specifically concerned about horse riders’ current use of the foreshore. Which flags up the fact that amending the Bill to include statutory access to that area, would probably be a popular measure.
So, Amendment 124T, obtained in the House of Lords, which aims to preserve our existing access to the foreshores, was really quite an achievement in the face of such determined opposition from government. That was the first opportunity horse riders have had to express their concerns, which government has done its utmost to suppress.
There is still work to do though. The amendment is worded in very general terms (see below) and the fact that the Bill does not specifically recognize horse riders as legitimate existing users, is a serious omission which needs to be challenged in the House of Commons. It would be most encouraging if Horse and Hound supported this measure.
124T: Clause 293, page 188, line 37, at end insert—
“( ) In section 20 (codes of conduct and other information)—
(a) in subsection (1), omit “and” at the end of paragraph (a) and after paragraph (b) insert
“, and (c) that, in relation to access land which is coastal margin, the public are informed that the right conferred by section 2(1) does not affect any other right of access that may exist in relation to that land.”,
Whereas the amendment tabled by Lord Greaves and Lord Tyler but subsequently withdrawn was more strongly worded:
"propose that the CROW Act Schedule 2 be amended by inserting at the end of paragraph 1c, “or in the case of that part of the Coastal Margin land which is foreshore, a dog or a horse.”
Horse and Hound 11th June 2009.This unhelpful and misleading article about coastal access for equestrians seems to imply that the hard working people involved in improving our countryside access have not done enough.
This is simply not true. Baroness Mallalieu, Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor were extremely well briefed by the BHS and the National Federation of Bridleways Associations. They put the case to the Lords for the need to protect our existing access, and the inclusion of equestrians to the coastal margin with great cogency. The amendments which have been made to the Bill as a result of their support do at least represent some progress for horse riders.
Before jumping in to criticise, Horse and Hound would do well to recognise what the equestrian access lobby is actually up against and lend them their support.
Government policy that the scope of the Coastal Access would only apply to walkers, was set in stone as early as 2005 and predated the consultation period. The Minister with responsibility for that decision was Jim Knight, the then Minister for the Horse. What this important sounding post actually entails, is a mystery. Certainly not acting as a champion for equestrian access.
In 2007 a research paper commissioned by Defra was published, the Asken Report into Coastal Access. The Report noted the popularity of horse riding on many beaches around the country. It wisely alerted government to the possible disadvantage to equestrian access of promoting a statutory access on foot only.
As a way of limiting that damage the report recommended that ‘the opportunity could be taken to extend access rights for horses to foreshores and beaches, thereby making a wider range of such areas available for horse riding.’ The report was considered (presumably in some detail) by the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, the then Minister for the Horse Minster Barry Gardiner.
The British Horse Society and the Equestrian Access Forum were in correspondence with Barry Gardiner at that time but still no action was taken to either protect existing equestrian access or to improve it. Lobbying a government which is not prepared to even listen to your concerns is not a rewarding experience but at least the consultation period would offer the equestrian community a chance to have their say.
Of the 35 respondents to the consultation question, whether higher rights should be included, 27 were in favour and only 9 were against. Unfortunately, even this pronounced majority in favour of the inclusion of higher rights was not enough to change the government’s mind. The unchanged Bill rolled on to the Select Committee.
Since the Coastal Access provisions put before the Select Committee excluded horse riders, no representative from the equestrian access lobby was invited to appear. The discussions were almost entirely limited to the concerns of the Ramblers Association and the Country Landowners Association.
However, written evidence from other groups was made available to the Committee. The 19 respondents in favour of including horse riders were characteristically Local Authorities, Local Access Forums and representatives of charitable organisations with an interest in promoting countryside access. 7 of those expressed concern that Natural England had not recognized existing traditional recreational use. Evidence was also received from the four Coastal Access pilot study areas, three of these recommended that horse riders should be included.
Pieces of written evidence against the inclusion of horse riders were slightly fewer, 16 in all. These were mainly from landowners, occupiers or their advisory bodies. The striking point about these responses was that it was not always clear to whether they were referring to the coastal paths, the coastal margin or the foreshore. Only 2 out of a total of 16 respondents against were specifically concerned about horse riders’ current use of the foreshore. Which flags up the fact that amending the Bill to include statutory access to that area, would probably be a popular measure.
So, Amendment 124T, obtained in the House of Lords, which aims to preserve our existing access to the foreshores, was really quite an achievement in the face of such determined opposition from government. That was the first opportunity horse riders have had to express their concerns, which government has done its utmost to suppress.
There is still work to do though. The amendment is worded in very general terms (see below) and the fact that the Bill does not specifically recognize horse riders as legitimate existing users, is a serious omission which needs to be challenged in the House of Commons. It would be most encouraging if Horse and Hound supported this measure.
124T: Clause 293, page 188, line 37, at end insert—
“( ) In section 20 (codes of conduct and other information)—
(a) in subsection (1), omit “and” at the end of paragraph (a) and after paragraph (b) insert
“, and (c) that, in relation to access land which is coastal margin, the public are informed that the right conferred by section 2(1) does not affect any other right of access that may exist in relation to that land.”,
Whereas the amendment tabled by Lord Greaves and Lord Tyler but subsequently withdrawn was more strongly worded:
"propose that the CROW Act Schedule 2 be amended by inserting at the end of paragraph 1c, “or in the case of that part of the Coastal Margin land which is foreshore, a dog or a horse.”
Tuesday 23 June 2009
Amendment in Marine Bill doesn’t really nail it for horse riders
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, moved an amendment to Part 9 of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill intended to protect the existing access currently enjoyed by horse riders. What do you think of this wording? Is it clear and unambiguous? Does it give ‘clarity and security’ to English horse riders like the Scottish law?
Amendment 124T
Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
124T: Clause 293, page 188, line 37, at end insert—
“( ) In section 20 (codes of conduct and other information)—
(a) in subsection (1), omit “and” at the end of paragraph (a) and after paragraph (b) insert
“, and (c) that, in relation to access land which is coastal margin, the public are informed that the right conferred by section 2(1) does not affect any other right of access that may exist in relation to that land.”,
and
(b) after that subsection insert—
“(1A) The duty imposed by subsection (1) to issue and revise a code of conduct may be discharged, in relation to access land which is coastal margin, by (or in part by) issuing and revising a separate code relating to such access land only.” ”
Amendment 124T agreed.
Well, I don’t see the word ‘horse’ here. In 2010 when the Bill has been passed, the Coastal Access provisions will be implemented by local authorities and others. Do you really think that horse riders will immediately spring to mind when they read the words ‘any other rights of access that may exist’?
More Importantly, how will horse riders prove they have existing rights, when government refuses to acknowledge them. As Baroness Mallalieu so succinctly put it to the House of Lords, when explaining horse riders’ concern that their existing access is likely to be eroded:
“I urge that the matter cannot simply be left in the air or in the realms of ministerial assurances. There needs to be a clear requirement in the Bill to try to preserve those existing rights. Many people ride on the foreshore for pleasure or other reasons. People train racehorses on the beach and many more like to take their bicycles on to the hard sand. Whether justified or not, people have a real fear that when the Bill is implemented barriers will go up preventing access to anyone other than pedestrians. I rather think that waving a copy of the excellent letter which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, wrote to me would be less effective in getting those barriers removed than having a clear statement in the Bill. That is what that simple amendment would do and I hope that, if not now, at a later stage there will be no objection to something of that sort being included in the Bill.”
If like me, you don’t think the wording of this Bill cuts the mustard, please contact your MP now. The Bill is currently being considered in the Commons and there’s still time to ask for more clarity.
Amendment 124T
Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
124T: Clause 293, page 188, line 37, at end insert—
“( ) In section 20 (codes of conduct and other information)—
(a) in subsection (1), omit “and” at the end of paragraph (a) and after paragraph (b) insert
“, and (c) that, in relation to access land which is coastal margin, the public are informed that the right conferred by section 2(1) does not affect any other right of access that may exist in relation to that land.”,
and
(b) after that subsection insert—
“(1A) The duty imposed by subsection (1) to issue and revise a code of conduct may be discharged, in relation to access land which is coastal margin, by (or in part by) issuing and revising a separate code relating to such access land only.” ”
Amendment 124T agreed.
Well, I don’t see the word ‘horse’ here. In 2010 when the Bill has been passed, the Coastal Access provisions will be implemented by local authorities and others. Do you really think that horse riders will immediately spring to mind when they read the words ‘any other rights of access that may exist’?
More Importantly, how will horse riders prove they have existing rights, when government refuses to acknowledge them. As Baroness Mallalieu so succinctly put it to the House of Lords, when explaining horse riders’ concern that their existing access is likely to be eroded:
“I urge that the matter cannot simply be left in the air or in the realms of ministerial assurances. There needs to be a clear requirement in the Bill to try to preserve those existing rights. Many people ride on the foreshore for pleasure or other reasons. People train racehorses on the beach and many more like to take their bicycles on to the hard sand. Whether justified or not, people have a real fear that when the Bill is implemented barriers will go up preventing access to anyone other than pedestrians. I rather think that waving a copy of the excellent letter which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, wrote to me would be less effective in getting those barriers removed than having a clear statement in the Bill. That is what that simple amendment would do and I hope that, if not now, at a later stage there will be no objection to something of that sort being included in the Bill.”
If like me, you don’t think the wording of this Bill cuts the mustard, please contact your MP now. The Bill is currently being considered in the Commons and there’s still time to ask for more clarity.
Monday 22 June 2009
Horse and Hound comment
“Horseworld misses bridleway and coastal access chances”
Horse and Hound 11th June 2009.
This unhelpful and misleading article about coastal access for equestrians seems to imply that the hard working people involved in improving our countryside access have not done enough.
This is simply not true. Baroness Mallalieu, Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor were extremely well briefed by the BHS and the National Federation of Bridleways Associations. They put the case to the Lords for the need to protect our existing access, and the inclusion of equestrians to the coastal margin with great cogency. The amendments which have been made to the Bill as a result of their support do at least represent some progress for horse riders.
Before jumping in to criticise, Horse and Hound would do well to recognise what the equestrian access lobby is actually up against and lend them their support.
Government policy that the scope of the Coastal Access would only apply to walkers, was set in stone as early as 2005 and predated the consultation period. The Minister with responsibility for that decision was Jim Knight, the then Minister for the Horse. What this important sounding post actually entails, is a mystery. Certainly not acting as a champion for equestrian access.
In 2007 a research paper commissioned by Defra was published, the Asken Report into Coastal Access. The Report noted the popularity of horse riding on many beaches around the country. It wisely alerted government to the possible disadvantage to equestrian access of promoting a statutory access on foot only.
As a way of limiting that damage the report recommended that ‘the opportunity could be taken to extend access rights for horses to foreshores and beaches, thereby making a wider range of such areas available for horse riding.’ The report was considered (presumably in some detail) by the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, the then Minister for the Horse Minster Barry Gardiner.
The British Horse Society and the Equestrian Access Forum were in correspondence with Barry Gardiner at that time but still no action was taken to either protect existing equestrian access or to improve it. Lobbying a government which is not prepared to even listen to your concerns is not a rewarding experience but at least the consultation period would offer the equestrian community a chance to have their say.
Of the 35 respondents to the consultation question, whether higher rights should be included, 27 were in favour and only 9 were against. Unfortunately, even this pronounced majority in favour of the inclusion of higher rights was not enough to change the government’s mind. The unchanged Bill rolled on to the Select Committee.
Since the Coastal Access provisions put before the Select Committee excluded horse riders, no representative from the equestrian access lobby was invited to appear. The discussions were almost entirely limited to the concerns of the Ramblers Association and the Country Landowners Association.
However, written evidence from other groups was made available to the Committee. The 19 respondents in favour of including horse riders were characteristically Local Authorities, Local Access Forums and representatives of charitable organisations with an interest in promoting countryside access. 7 of those expressed concern that Natural England had not recognized existing traditional recreational use. Evidence was also received from the four Coastal Access pilot study areas, three of these recommended that horse riders should be included.
Pieces of written evidence against the inclusion of horse riders were slightly fewer, 16 in all. These were mainly from landowners, occupiers or their advisory bodies. The striking point about these responses was that it was not always clear to whether they were referring to the coastal paths, the coastal margin or the foreshore. Only 2 out of a total of 16 respondents against were specifically concerned about horse riders’ current use of the foreshore. Which flags up the fact that amending the Bill to include statutory access to that area, would probably be a popular measure.
So, Amendment 124T, obtained in the House of Lords, which aims to preserve our existing access to the foreshores, was really quite an achievement in the face of such determined opposition from government. That was the first opportunity horse riders have had to express their concerns, which government has done its utmost to suppress.
There is still work to do though. The amendment is worded in very general terms (see below) and the fact that the Bill does not specifically recognize horse riders as legitimate existing users, is a serious omission which needs to be challenged in the House of Commons. It would be most encouraging if Horse and Hound supported this measure.
124T: Clause 293, page 188, line 37, at end insert—
“( ) In section 20 (codes of conduct and other information)—
(a) in subsection (1), omit “and” at the end of paragraph (a) and after paragraph (b) insert
“, and (c) that, in relation to access land which is coastal margin, the public are informed that the right conferred by section 2(1) does not affect any other right of access that may exist in relation to that land.”,
Whereas the amendment tabled by Lord Greaves and Lord Tyler but subsequently withdrawn was more strongly worded:
propose that the CROW Act Schedule 2 be amended by inserting at the end of paragraph 1c, “or in the case of that part of the Coastal Margin land which is foreshore, a dog or a horse.”
Horse and Hound 11th June 2009.
This unhelpful and misleading article about coastal access for equestrians seems to imply that the hard working people involved in improving our countryside access have not done enough.
This is simply not true. Baroness Mallalieu, Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor were extremely well briefed by the BHS and the National Federation of Bridleways Associations. They put the case to the Lords for the need to protect our existing access, and the inclusion of equestrians to the coastal margin with great cogency. The amendments which have been made to the Bill as a result of their support do at least represent some progress for horse riders.
Before jumping in to criticise, Horse and Hound would do well to recognise what the equestrian access lobby is actually up against and lend them their support.
Government policy that the scope of the Coastal Access would only apply to walkers, was set in stone as early as 2005 and predated the consultation period. The Minister with responsibility for that decision was Jim Knight, the then Minister for the Horse. What this important sounding post actually entails, is a mystery. Certainly not acting as a champion for equestrian access.
In 2007 a research paper commissioned by Defra was published, the Asken Report into Coastal Access. The Report noted the popularity of horse riding on many beaches around the country. It wisely alerted government to the possible disadvantage to equestrian access of promoting a statutory access on foot only.
As a way of limiting that damage the report recommended that ‘the opportunity could be taken to extend access rights for horses to foreshores and beaches, thereby making a wider range of such areas available for horse riding.’ The report was considered (presumably in some detail) by the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, the then Minister for the Horse Minster Barry Gardiner.
The British Horse Society and the Equestrian Access Forum were in correspondence with Barry Gardiner at that time but still no action was taken to either protect existing equestrian access or to improve it. Lobbying a government which is not prepared to even listen to your concerns is not a rewarding experience but at least the consultation period would offer the equestrian community a chance to have their say.
Of the 35 respondents to the consultation question, whether higher rights should be included, 27 were in favour and only 9 were against. Unfortunately, even this pronounced majority in favour of the inclusion of higher rights was not enough to change the government’s mind. The unchanged Bill rolled on to the Select Committee.
Since the Coastal Access provisions put before the Select Committee excluded horse riders, no representative from the equestrian access lobby was invited to appear. The discussions were almost entirely limited to the concerns of the Ramblers Association and the Country Landowners Association.
However, written evidence from other groups was made available to the Committee. The 19 respondents in favour of including horse riders were characteristically Local Authorities, Local Access Forums and representatives of charitable organisations with an interest in promoting countryside access. 7 of those expressed concern that Natural England had not recognized existing traditional recreational use. Evidence was also received from the four Coastal Access pilot study areas, three of these recommended that horse riders should be included.
Pieces of written evidence against the inclusion of horse riders were slightly fewer, 16 in all. These were mainly from landowners, occupiers or their advisory bodies. The striking point about these responses was that it was not always clear to whether they were referring to the coastal paths, the coastal margin or the foreshore. Only 2 out of a total of 16 respondents against were specifically concerned about horse riders’ current use of the foreshore. Which flags up the fact that amending the Bill to include statutory access to that area, would probably be a popular measure.
So, Amendment 124T, obtained in the House of Lords, which aims to preserve our existing access to the foreshores, was really quite an achievement in the face of such determined opposition from government. That was the first opportunity horse riders have had to express their concerns, which government has done its utmost to suppress.
There is still work to do though. The amendment is worded in very general terms (see below) and the fact that the Bill does not specifically recognize horse riders as legitimate existing users, is a serious omission which needs to be challenged in the House of Commons. It would be most encouraging if Horse and Hound supported this measure.
124T: Clause 293, page 188, line 37, at end insert—
“( ) In section 20 (codes of conduct and other information)—
(a) in subsection (1), omit “and” at the end of paragraph (a) and after paragraph (b) insert
“, and (c) that, in relation to access land which is coastal margin, the public are informed that the right conferred by section 2(1) does not affect any other right of access that may exist in relation to that land.”,
Whereas the amendment tabled by Lord Greaves and Lord Tyler but subsequently withdrawn was more strongly worded:
propose that the CROW Act Schedule 2 be amended by inserting at the end of paragraph 1c, “or in the case of that part of the Coastal Margin land which is foreshore, a dog or a horse.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
