Below is an article I've written for the
Guardian's Comment Is Free website on today's Queen's Speech. You can also see the article I wrote for the Guardian yesterday
here. If you want to download the full alternative Queen's Speech I am proposing, you can download it in PDF format
here.
The whole point about the new politics I am trying to engender in my campaign for the leadership of the Labour Party is to encourage politicians to be straight about their aims and political judgements. This is not the same as political balance or objectivity. I have a political philosophy by which I judge political events. It's called socialism, which at its core is about achieving equality, justice and peace through democracy.
How do the proposals in the Government's Queen's speech stack up against these criteria?
Will our society become more equal? I'm pleased that pensioners will be able to travel free on buses across local authority boundaries and that measures are being taken to improve child maintenance but these welcome additional benefits pale into insignificance with the announcement this morning that city financiers have awarded themselves up to £5.5m each in bonuses this year.
Will our society become more just as a result of the Government's Criminal Justice bill proposals to increase sentences and extend ASBOs and its plans to privatise the probation service and our prisons? This model of criminal justice has failed to work in America so there must be serious doubts about its efficacy here. The private companies which run some of our prisons already make their profits out of cutting the wages and conditions of staff, undermining the professional approach needed if prison is to rehabilitate. The laws aimed at restricting trial by jury and using legal powers against those suffering mental illness need careful consideration if our basic civil liberties are to be protected.
Will our society be better protected against terrorism and part of a more peaceful world as a result of the proposals in the Queen's speech? Tightening up border and immigration controls go nowhere in addressing the underlying causes of terrorism in our society and in our world. There is a widespread consensus that the government's policies of pursuing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East have led to an increased threat of terrorism and increasing division between communities. We have got to deal with Iraq sooner rather than later and recognise that the presence of occupying forces is part of the problem not the solution. Instead of remaining isolated with Bush and the neo-cons, all our powers of diplomacy should be directed towards fully involving the international community in helping resolve Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest of the world's conflicts. Unless the injustice of the Palestinians is effectively dealt with the terrorist threat will continue.
Overall this Queen's speech provides even more evidence of the gap between the government and the real world.
39 Comments:
What have city Financiers got to do with you- or dont you believe in entrepreneurial reward? "Tightening up border and immigration controls go nowhere in addressing the underlying causes of terrorism" No- it is about Illegal immigration. Though thank God that here we dont Conflate Immigration with Crime- which is borderline Racist Daily Mail/Torygraph nonsense.
I find your assertion that we sought war in Afghanistan offensive- Do you not remember 9/11? did you not hear about the Taliban who used to skin 14 year old boys? Did you not hear about now they have been a training ground for kashmiri Terrorism? Your statement there is grotesque.
Fianlly, Do you think that firing 2000 missiles into Israel is unjust? or blowing up Israeli teens at discos is not unjust? We all Condemn Israel when it does wrong- why do you hand a blank cheque to the Hamas?
Entrepreneurial reward is arguably OK ( though personally I'm not convinced) Corporate greed is another. Socialists do not, as a rule, condone rich people creaming off fat cat profits at the expense of the poor. Of course we pursued war in Iraq - at great cost to human life and very little to show in terms of winning the so-called "war on terror." Even if you argue 9/11 justified the initial push in Afghanistan, where are we now? It's a horrible, bloodymess and the Taloban are still there.
John is calling for the Govt to work with the UN for peaceful exit strategies in both places. There is nothing "grotesque" about that - unilke the latest announcement that the US is sending even more troops into Iraq.
Ah but do the US want to pursue much of the same in Iraq? Bush has certainly modified his tone since the mid-term elections clearly more through pressure from the electorate than choice. This is how it must be. His blinkered vision of a New World Order first mooted by his father when he was in office is hopefully finally coming off the tracks. Very soon I expect the US to be looking for a face saving exit strategy that protects their oil interests.
Blair as has been the case since the invasion in 2003 will be drawn along on his coat tails. We cannot sustain a presence in Iraq if the US are leaving so we will have to bail out also. 125 British troops have died in Iraq since the invasion in 2003. I along with John stood in silence last Sunday remembering the sacrifice these people have made along with all those that have lost their lives in all war both military and civilian. When Blair does go the failures in Iraq will be what he is remembered for.
Yesterday in the house at the Queens speech debate Blair seemed to suggest Brown as his successor, certainly the press have picked up on this fact.
No doubt from here on in they will consider it a ‘done deal’ convincing many of the futility of open debate.
Keep up the good work John the country needs a proper debate on the real issues and who should succeed as PM.
Arjun,
For the reason behind the Afghan offensive by the west, think of the pipeline that George Bush Snr wants a share of the action in.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1626889.stm
You speak in the other thread of your fear that businesses will move abroad if the minimum wage is increased. So that means you are quite prepared to let poor workers suffer for the sake of profits to remain in this country. that is a form of taxation on the poor.
Arjun, I think you are a Tory and I claim my five pounds :-)
John is right, it is the underlying causes of terrorism that must be fought.
For those of you who think that by officially shutting our doors we'll put an end to terrorism, think again.
I'll always remember the fable of the sun and the wind who both coveted a man's fine coat. The wind tried it's best to blow the coat off his back. But the sun gained the trophy by persuading the man to throw it off willingly.
Real labour, someone earning 5 and a half million is contributing enough money to keep a small school open individually- we should take the approach that weare not interested in screwing the rich- we must create opportunities for the poor, and they ought to be the centre of policy making. Also I hope John is pressing for a more Progressive tax system- not a green one.
On Iraq I dont think we are going to agree, all I will say is that I am glad saddam is gone, but i totally disagree with your opinion of Afghanistan. There was a recent survey of afghan opinion, with an overwhelmingly positive respone- it shows Afghanistan to be a liberal minded place, who are happy the taliban are gone, and trust the New institutions. Their main concern is the economy (naturally) and no the return of the Taliban, far from letting them take over again and destroy what we have achieved, we should stay and fight for our allies and for the people of Afghanistan who oppose the Taliban returning. Old Labour, Afghanistan is not a great place to be at the moment, but it's prospects are far worse if we pull out.
Curlew- The pipeline has benn "in the pipeline" (see what I did there) for many years, I remember back in 1996 they were going to build one through to karachi. it is only now that that can come to fruition. I refer you to the survey- it will be good for Afghanistan's Economy, widely thought by the people to be the biggest issue.
I have not said that if the minimum wage would cause unemployment- I said it would only if raised too fast, as businesses will be unable to cope with their short term cost structures. Do not make the Tory Mistake that higher pay causes unemployment- it only does if it is raised without sufficient lag time. By all means raise it above ave. wage inflation, but so ong as it isnt excessively above. a 40% increae would be great for those on it, I would love to see it, but I am wary of the effects- as I have said, its better to get £5 ph rather than nothing. I spent almost all of last night talking to a pub landlord, and he was saying he hasnt got money to take home because pay is so high, and that costs are going up. if he isnt making money he will shut ndown his pub and work for someone, leaving his staff unemployed- is that really what we want?
In relation to your point, I dont believe the minimum wage is something people suffer on- what about before it was introduced? Why do you assume that all businesses make profit- I can tall you- they dont! people who pay minimum wage are as I said tend to be small businesses, which never make large profits, or companies which work on 1-2% marginal rates of return. Also a stipulation of Globalisation is that there s free transfer of money- I dont care which country a profit is in, i care about keeping jobs in britain.
i find it rather odd that you believe anyone of a different opinion is a tory. What has become of our party when intolerance is the guiding force. We might as well give up and ecome Daily mail reading bigots.
Current voter- lovely- would you like to persuade Mr. Bin Laden not to be a naughty boy? I dont think you have realised that these arent people you can just chat to on the internet and hve a vigorous discussion about the minimum wage. These people are cold blooded murderors.
Excellent alternative John.
Got to say though, that the whole spectacle of the Queen's speech and Black Rod etc..., is the most absurd feudal parade and makes the country appear to be absolutley ridicolous to the rest of humanity. I'd consign it to the dustbin of history where it belongs.
As regard city bonuses: The massive bonuses being awarded to city slickers and more importantly major company CE's is not represented by a corresponding rise in production, r&d or workers' wages. Strange definition of reward - more like getting more for less.
Enterpreneurial reward really equates to the unpaid labour of the working class, so by extracting in tax, or reclaiming tax lost through avoidance, means that a small part is returned to us.
That's why city financiers certainly are a socialist's business.
Mark, Worcester.
Wow! The theme being - remove Labour legislation that he doesn't like without proposing ANY other measures to tackle the problems that the legislation was put in to tackle in the first place.
And massive spending increases with no mention of how he'd pay for them in a country already feeling overtaxed.
A few things I like, but overall very negative - no vision.
Well done John. Once again giving reasoned and visionary policies for a real Labour government. Your policies would help in fixing the mistakes of the last 9 years, whilst building on the good things we achieved as well.
The sitution that faces the party is not the same as that which faced Thatcher. She was kicked out of office on a policy dispute. What is happening in our party? The leader is leaving to be replaced by his ideological double, with an aim of having no debate over the leadership. This should not be allowed to happen! One of the fundamental objectives of John's campaign should be about having that open debate.
My advice would be, don't let the campaign get distracted by a few Blairites out to derail the lefts best chance of power in a generation. The country is up for a debate, the party is up for a debate and your up for it. Let's show the country that Labour can have an adult, reasoned and intelligent debate, driven not by personality but by policy and without petty personal vendettas.
Mark, You have made a valid point, and expressed it with eloquence, however I would argue (as an accountant) that you wouldnt get a bonus if you werent raising performance. And I hate to say it, but they are more likely to get a pay rise if they dont increase costs. Remember execs do not own the businesses, the shareholders do- if you feel that companies should pay higher wages, then you need to change thier attitude. That is my advice.
John, what do you say to my friend the pub landlord who will have to shut down his business because costs are going up for him and he is not bringing enough money home because taxes are too high and so are his costs- you want to tax him more. I would love for you to tell me what to say to him.
Arjun,
businesses only pay tax on their profits - therefore if your pub mate is making no profit then there will be nothing to tax - are you an accountant? I thought ou were a 19 year old student in a previous post?
If John's proposals are in line with LRC policy (see www.l-r-c.org.uk) then he is only proposing a new tax rate of 50% for income over £60k and 60% over £100k - while cutting tax at the bottom. Therefore everyone getting less than about £62k (97% of the population) would be better off.
Green taxes can of course be progressive if well-targeted. See for example Ken Livingston's proposals for range rovers in London - they cost upwards of £50k so it's only a tax on the rich.
Likewise long-haul flights are disproportionately used by the rich - and so avaition fuel tax would hit them.
As for the minimum wage. Labour frequently highlighted in 1997 that some employers were paying as little as £2.50 per hour and then instituted a £3.60 minimum wage - about a 40% increase for some employers then - and did mass unemployment result? No.
If tax is raised for the very rich, then that allows public investment in building rail or renewable energy infrastructure - which then creates jobs. That might be social democracy
Arjun, for a terrorist to succeed he must gain the support of a large group of followers - this can be found in a population who have been unfairly treated and who have justifiable claims of ill-treatment. In this situation the perpetrators gain some moral ground - this is the underlying cause we are talking about, and has been so since terrorism began.
In your Guardian article, I am pleased to see that you don't adopt a "cut and run" position over the withdrawal of American and British troops from Iraq and Afganistan and instead advocate a key role for the United Nations. They might, of course, come up with
alternative troop replacements involving, say, other Arab and Islamic nations. I hope that is OK by you.
It is interesting, however, that your point to the Guardian does not appear in your alternative Queen's Speech. What is in that Speech contains many items I support. The problem being that the sum is much weaker than its parts. In the Morning Star version,
you cover 21 areas which have 108
specific proposals in them.
It is as if you wish to ensure that you will not obtain the required nominations from fellow Labour MPs. If by some accident you did,then in turn you would ensure that would not make an impact in a Labour ballot, nor with the electorate and (if implimented) would be destroyed through a flight of capital. So this is not a serious left tactic, unless you are looking to lead a tiny group of the pure out into the
wilderness. For an alternative approach, see my latest posted item entitled "Will the real Peter Hain please stand up?" (I know that I am guilty of waiting for Godot).
If only the world was ready for the general line of what you propose. Can't you give a vision of what is needed without pretending it can be done with the wave of a wand?
Harry,
The Alternative is a set of proposals to be debated not a 'take it or leave it, all or nothing' package. But what do you object to?
Iraq wouldn't feature in the Queen's Speech, even an alternative, as it doesn't require legislation.
I have nothing constructive to say about your support for Peter Hain. It's delusional, but I'll leave it there.
looks like the french are embracing socialism, the world would appear to be going leftwards will all these lefties being electeed...
and Ken is green and was before Cameron
if the Tories are going to save the NHS why haven't they done so in Wycombe where they are in power
I expect someone complained to the BBC that 1) on a recent Westminster hour they siad there were no good political blogs -omitting to mention this one - and two they omitted to mention John in their discussion on who might get the women's vote in The Daily Politics yesterday, didn't see Itchy and Scratchy as was asleep
see Private Eye every week for "intersting" picture of Andrew O Neil
Phil- I am an accounting student!
No it isnt true that the only tax for businesses is what you say- they have to pay rates, council taxes, business taxes, beer tax, tobacco tax, fuel duty VAT... I am not saying any of these taxes are bad, but are they too high for small businesses?
John Mcdonnell's tax plan is a point of ridicule- everyone is saying they are taxe too much- why do you want to add to this? surely it would be more prudent to re- allocate current spending and cut waste?
Green Taxes are not progressive, because they are a tax on habit, poorer people do not have the choices or means to substantially lower thier carbon footprints, or at least not in a reaosnable time frame- therefore they will pay proportionately more of thier income. I am not againsst green taxes, but it regressive to balance the tax system on them. Personally I am wary of high airline taxes, yes they are very pollutive, but I want low income earners to have the same access to travel as High income earners, so hiking the prices make travel the preserve of the rich.
in 1997 the pay was rediculously low, and was affordable, the economy has changed since then, as i said with tighter margins. I hope those answer your points, and its nice to talk to people here without abuse.
Current voter- indeed it is a recruiting sargent- but surely the answer is to sort out problems in Israel/ Palestine and address their economic problems?
Helen- as I said not everywhere is the left being elected- where it is it is happening vocally, in places like South America, where useless tub thumpers get elected because they attack america instead of addressing the real issues. i have limited respect for messers Castro, Chavez and Morrales.
Diane Abbott said nothing about John Mcdonnell last night. I think she was still reminiscing about dinner. I dont think John Mcdonnell has any chance of the womens vote either.
Bill,
You can't have it two ways. On the one hand you wish to stick to the protocal of a Queen's speech; then you deny the use of that format.
You argue that as John's presentation was that of a Queen's Speech he could not raise the issue of troop withdrawals. This argument is incorrect. Look at the third paragraph of the actual Queen's Speech. It offers ample scope for such a point to be introduced in John's version.
But then you argue that John's umpteen points were not legislative
proposals, but were only debating points. I don't think John sees himself conducting a load of academic seminars. He is campaigning for his demands. The consequences of these combined in terms of costs, capital's reactions and voters' hestitations are therefore legitimate point's for him to be asked to consider.
I suggest you have a look at Lenin on "Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder". John will know what I am questioning.
Harry,
I've also read Lenin, thanks.
The Queen's Speech is a legislative programme, yes there is accompanying rhetoric, but it is about the legislation for the forthcoming parliamentary session (surely you know this as an ex-MP.
If you want to know John's view on Iraq, then read his previous blog: http://www.john4leader.org.uk/2006/10/iraq-exit-strategy.html
I argued they were "for debate" as this is an 'alternative' Queen's Speech, published to lead to debate and comment (which seems to have worked).
As an MP who frequently rebelled against New Labour legislation, surely you welcome other MPs who come forward with constructive proposals and encourage debate?
In the spirit of debate, where do you think voters would be hesitant?
Comradely, Bill
the best ASBOS I've heard were one for someone who threw RHUBARB at her older brother who was seventy,(she was fifty seven) and I think I read in The Mirror that a farmer was given one for letting his pigs make too much noise or similiar farcical situation, I think there's a book of silly ASBOS in the politccal bookshops or somehwere which would make a good stocking filler with Christmas around the corner... !
I'm not mocking the very good work of the police service, it's not them that made the policy. I'm just trying to get things in to perspective as it makes a change for all that cringe making talk about Cabinet "bruisers" like John Reid and the tougher and tougher measures they's bring in.
Any teacher or Life Coach could tell you the way to get results is to expect the best from people not the worst, and not writing people off is key i.e. less of the stick more of the carrot, this does not mean all carrot of course before anyone starts generalising
the leadership of our party should expect the best and express their faith in their party's judgement by allowing it to have a leadership contest
Well said h - it's called labelling theory. If you tell someone there a yob enough, they believe it and act up to it.
ASBOs are doubly ludicrous - not only are they given out for strange (as noted above) actions, but entirely non-illegal actions. But, if you repeat one of these legal actions once you have an ASBO, you can be imprisoned.
In short they allow people to be prosecuted who have never broken the law.
Arjun said :-
"Current voter- indeed it is a recruiting sargent- but surely the answer is to sort out problems in Israel/ Palestine and address their economic problems?"
But this is what John & his supporters are saying and what you were rejecting only a day or two ago?
Comrade Bill,
Voters vary in their attitudes. If you put 108 substanial proposals to them, most will find something to worry them. Especially when encouraged to do so by opponents and the media.
The bigger question will be, how will it all be paid for and what will the impact of this be on our competitive position in the world?
Again opposing forces will hammer
fears home.
This does not mean that we can never do anything about John's proposals. But we can't complete such proposals in anything but the very long run, and only by careful preparation.
I held these views in the Socialist
Campaign Group and voted against the decisions to support attempts by Tony Benn and Ken Livingstone to
run for the leadership.
I admire a great deal about John, but I believe that his current project is mistaken and (as with Tony's and Ken's) will prove counter-productive for what is left of the left.
As Lenin said when defending the circumstances in which principled compromises were necessary, "That is, in fact, one of the functions of party organisation and of a party leadership worthy of the title". It is also a function of someone campaigning to be a leader.
I can't use this comments page for a lengthy analysis of my case. But I will post an item extending my case (in time) on my own blog.
I say these things in a comradely way, as I did in the Campaign Group when I disagreed with the majority on issues such as Northern Ireland, the European Union and the priorities in Iraq once we had failed to stop the invasion. I would still be doing this, if I had remained an M.P.
Harry.
'Cutting waste' with the honourable intention of spending elsewhere is an urban myth.
Current voter- no it isnt, it is what I have been arguing all along.
Harry,
I think your post is unfair to John. I totally accept your position of opposing previous leadership campaigns (though don't share it) but it does appear that you are inferring things that aren't there. No suggestion of 'waving a wand' is present in the alternative Queen's Speech; the argument of involving the UN in making progress in Iraq (with the likely consequence of US/UK troops being replaced by others) has been the consistent line of those on the left who are opposed to the continuance of occupation all along (and I confess despite reading reams of what you've written on this, it is the one area where I find your position somewhat baffling: not what you believe in - but your attacks on people who believe something barely different).
Yes, John's Alternative Queen's Speech was a proposed legislative programme (and actually I think it rather modest in places) but - as a future programme rather than a debating position in a leadership election - it has to be seen in the context of a democratic and pluralistic Labour Party where we - including you, and NOW not just when you were an MP - will be including in decision-making processes and will help to shape the programme. I've found a lot of centre-left people have become a lot more supportive since they've seen the document: partly because they were surprised by how much of it they agreed with, but also because they were impressed with the decision to be so upfront in the first place. I think we should be congratulating John for being honest, open and welcoming a debate, rather than criticise him for not compromising and finding a 'middle way'.
I'll leave the slightly bizarre use of Lenin for another post, I think!
Duncan,
The thing which worries me most about John's Alternative Queen's Speech is its cumulative effect, even over a phased (but hardly an open-ended) period.
My position on British and American troops in Iraq is that they need to stay until (a) the Iraqi Government and Parliament ask
otherwise and even then (b) these bodies might wish to see replacement troops agreed via
the United Nations. The nearer John moves to this position, the more he moves away from many of his supporters (certainly from the leadership of the Stop the War Coalition and from many in Labour against the War - even though their 2006 Conference argued that internatioanl institutions might meed to play some sort of role in the withdrawal of troops "if necessary".
John's campaign would become more attractive to me, only to the extent that it would start to alienate some of his supporters.
I will eventually seek to spell out
such matters on my own blog, plus why I remained in the Campaign Group for 17 years in Parliament, whilst being semi-detached from part of its thrust. It was an oasis
for socialist debate in a parliamentary desert.
But I don't feel that I should take up too much more space in
John4Leader, especially when I have started to try and press Hain into a Peter4Leader campaign.
Harry the Ken 4 Mayor campaign was as we all know SUCCESSFUL, it can be done!
(I'm not saying he's all perfect even though I worked on said campaign, why he's now privatising the tube is beyond me and he's not as socialist as John but I'd prefer him to anyone else.
h- I wont be campaigning for Ken, and Harry, Peter Hain is a declared runner for the Deputy Leadership, I dont think he would then go for Leader as well. He is your friend though...
Harry,
On your earlier point in terms of costings, the LRC (of which John McDonnell is chair) published this at the time of the last budget – March 2006 (John McDonnell wrote the intro):
http://www.l-r-c.org.uk/leap-redpapers-mar2006.pdf
It seems like a very well-budgeted balanced book approach to policy . . .
I am confused that you back Peter Hain (who voted FOR the war) and has had little to say on any future proposals, but you oppose John (who like you voted AGAINST the war) and has actually argued a legitimate and considered position on the withdrawal of troops.
Also the leadership is not a single issue campaign. You voted alongside John many times (and quite rightly) as an MP - against top-up fees, foundation hospitals, ID cards etc
To John Todd
Of course, the leadership campaign is not a single issue campaign, but neither should it be a 108 issue campaign.
Nor are LEAP's proposals a costing for John's alternative Queen's Speech. They were valuable proposals on how alternative budgets can nudge us in the direction of social equality. I am all for nudging and striking hard when we have helped create the right conditions.
On Peter Hain you will see that I do call on him to fulfil some tough condition first.
John, your support for the Hunting Act and animal issues is well known and valued.
There is a problem I feel it is very important you should know about,the impact of which could have severe repercussions for Labour marginal seats and therefore,the prospects of success at the next election.
Since 1997 the Labour party has been fortunate to enjoy support from a great many people in the animal welfare community.
These people are overwhelmingly active campaigners, who were prepared to leaflet, canvass and so on behalf of Labour candidates across the country.
This support was galvanised in 2005 to ensure the Hunting Act was protected from a Tory party pledged to scrap it.
There is now widespread and growing anger and frustration in the AW community because of the lack of enforcement of the Hunting Act and the lack of seriousness with which the government appears to view the breaches of it.
This was highlighted very recently by a written answer given by a Defra Minister to the MP Ashok Kumar, who won much praise in the AW movement for his question to government over the enforcement and weak points in the Act.
The one line,brazenly complacent response from the Minister to Mr Kumar caused a great deal of anger.
Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will introduce legislation to amend the Hunting Act 2004 (a) to repeal provisions which allow mammals to be chased by dogs then (i) shot and (ii) hunted by a bird of prey and (b) to ban chasing mammals with dogs. [107687]
4 Dec 2006 : Column 47W
Barry Gardiner: The Government have no plans to amend the Hunting Act 2004. We are satisfied with the operation of the Act, which bans all hunting of wild mammals with dogs, apart from in accordance with the tightly-drawn exemptions.
This has become a totemic issue and one which threatens to fracture key support from a very large,influential and active group of voters.
Recently a new political party called 'animals count' was formed which is getting a lot of interest and support from people in the AW community.
The let down which is felt,over the Hunting Act being too weak and not enforced, is driving people into the arms of this party and this threatens key seats we must hold, especially in the West Country but in other areas too.
I cannot over emphasise the problem that is brewing with this.
This in the face of a Tory party which has been pledged huge support from the Countryside Alliance for the next election.
Labour has an excellent record on animal welfare but it must do something to address the let down which is felt and tighten up and push for enforcement of the Hunting Act.
The Tory party is led by a confirmed fox hunter, a man who is dedicated to restoring the barbarism of chasing and disembowelling wild animals with packs of dogs.
Labour has the opportunity to beat Cameron soundly, backed by the overwhelming majority of the public who are against barbaric bloodsports.
It must though, engage with its natural supporters and uphold the will of the public who are angered that hunters are ignoring the law of the land and getting away with it.
Not a week goes by without a horror story of hounds chasing and killing foxes and deer in front of appalled members of the public, of widespread and flagrant law breaking and so called 'testing' of the law,hunt monitors assaulted and their property vandalised.
I am reporting this situation to you exactly as I find it, it is a major problem and it needs to be addressed.
I would be grateful for your support on these issues.
Kind regards and thanks
Chris Gale
NEC Member, Labour Animal Welfare Society (personal capacity)
Photoshop CS4
Windows XP
cheap jordan shoes
Microsoft Office
Metallic UGG Boots
Mini UGG Boots
Photoshop CS4
Windows XP
cheap jordan shoes
Microsoft Office
Metallic UGG Boots
Mini UGG Boots
The report says ed hardy shoes lack of water in the future ed hardy hats may result in several problems. It may ed hardy jeans increase health problems. Lack of water often means drinking ed hardy belts waters not safe. Mr. Engelman says there are problems ed hardy kids all over the world because of diseases, such as ed hardy hoodies cholera, which are carried in water. Lack of water ed hardy caps may also result in more international conflict. Countries ed hardy bags may have to compete for water in the ed hardy purses future. Some countries now get ed hardy t shirts sixty percent of their fresh water from other countries. This ED Hardy Mens Hoodies is true of Egypt, the Netherlands, Cambodia, Syria, Sudan, and Iraq. And the report says lack ed hardy sunglasses of water would affect the ability of ED Hardy Swimwear developing to improve ED Hardy Swim Trunks their economies. This is because Ed Hardy Mens T-Shirt new industries often need a large ED Hardy Mens Tops amount of water when they are beginning.
I agree with you, your saying is so good and usful for me. Thanks. Are you also like
ugg boots sale
ugg australia
uggs
It’s a meaningful and interesting topic. Thanks.
Paragraph star UGG boots, many shops Amoy’s that some people go online to buy or Shopping Service, in a word, they are
very good look, take a look at the stars with their own, become a star is a small case! This the reason why
ugg boots sale are so popular now!Put on cotton boots is also moving up and
quiet,such as the ugg boots uk match with the pants.there is also a good dress with Miu leather. At the same time, necessary are gloves, ear muffs, snow ugg boots, sunglasses, scarf and so on, which you can pick the beautiful pieces of dress, no matter how technology, let us heavily armed first.so
now ugg boots sale in many shoes shop.there are many ugg boots you can choose in the
ugg boots uk shop!
Buy Kamagra
Earn Google
M65 Jacket
Viagra Cialis
Cheap Kamagra
Cheap Viagra
Cheap Cialis
Make Money on Google
M65 Field Jacket
Airline Dog Carrier
Airline Dog Carriers
Viagra Cialis
Earn Google
Airline Dog Carrier
Airline Dog Carriers
Airline Approved Dog Carriers
ED Hardy Wholesale
Copy DVD Software
How to Send Fax
14k Yellow Gold
Redneck Costume
14k Gold Heart
Tandem Baby Stroller
More and more people began to collect jordan shoes. If you are Michael Jordan fans, you must have collection air jordans . If you want to buy the cheap jordan shoes,you can search the internet.Jordan is the hero of every individual mind. Of course, we are also very like the air jordan shoes .So you will like the air jordans,you will found the shoes make you become more and more beautiful.
Post a Comment
<< Home