A charity is not allowed to take part in political campaigning, especially during an election period. This wasn't a simple poll. It contained a hugely loaded question which YouGov should have refused to ask...
In 2002, a senior Conservative Party politician described the party as having been regarded as “the nasty party”. The current Conservative leader has sought to rebrand them as the “Compassionate Conservatives”. Do you think the Conservative pledge to hold a vote on whether to make the hunting with dogs of deer, hares and foxes legal again is MORE in keeping with a ‘nasty party’ or a ‘Compassionate Conservative’ party?
A ‘nasty party’ - - - - - 56%
A ‘Compassionate Conservative’ party - - 23%
Don’t know - - - - - 21%
How is that not a "push" question? YouGov is an excellent polling company, but they have sullied their reputation with this. I emailed Steve Taylor with two questions...
1. Explain to me why this press release is in accord with your non political commitments under the Charities ActHere are his answers...
2. Why do you wish to alienate all Conservative Party supporters?
1. You are right that we are a charity, but we are also a Registered Third Party with the Electoral Commission. We conducted polling to highlight how David Cameron is out of touch with public opinion on the issue of hunting. That is right and proper for us as an organisation with a legitimate interest in that area.
2. We do not wish to alienate Conservative supporters and you are right to point out that we count a number of Party members amongst our supporters, and alienation is not our intention. We have conducted this polling simply to highlight how out of touch Mr Cameron is on this subject. All our supporters would expect us to do that.
The LAS has a legitimate viewpoint. They are quite within their rights to commission polls on the hunting issue. But draw your own conclusions as to why they conducted this push poll with only four days to go until polling. David Cameron has said there would be a free vote on hunting in a future Parliament. Frankly, stunts like this will only serve to harden opinion against the agenda the LAS wishes to promote.
Charity, my arse.
UPDATE 4pm: The Charity Commission has been in touch with me and left the following comment...
The Charity Commission, as the independent regulator for charities in England and Wales, is aware of this issue and looking into it to see what regulatory role, if any, there may be for us. We will not comment further on this specific case at this stage, but guidance for charities on campaigning (called Speaking Out - CC9), and guidance for charities during election periods, is available on our website HERE.
LAS? Are they against ALL sports per se now?
Incidentally, the Church Of England is a charity by Statute but they don't seem to mind telling people who they shouldn't be voting for in these elections either. In fact, the bar on charities doing political activity doesn't seem to count if it's against the BNP
Why do they not campaign about battery hens and cows that are kept indoors all year to increase yields.
They are just picking on a this as they are just trouble making lefties
The hunting ban is dead. Hunting has never been in better shape. Repealing the legislation is irrelevant.
The real issue is why YouGov compromised their reputation by asking such a loaded question - shame on them.
Utterly disgusting, and makes it look like the issue is more party political than truly about welfare of animals.
The PR man's answer was poor too - the question wasn't "Do you agree with the ban on hunting" (which would have been a fair question to ask) but asking about compassionate Conservatism.
It seems pretty clear they're just a stooge organization with one intention. Not stoping 'cruel sports', just attacking the Tories.
Their question was mentioned 'deers, hares and foxes', funny that their logo has just those animals. No picture of a bull being ridden by Spanish (well it's their culture, isn't it), cock fighting in Mexico (their culture, of course), nope just the animals that HAPPEN to be their poll and related to Fox Hunting. Funny that.
Any idea on who funds these commies?
But the purpose of huntint isn't a sport is it? It's to manage livestock and nature in the countryside ie good husbandry. Something the LAS doens't understand, nor many of the urban public.
You're right loaded question, with no relevance. Report LAS to that wonderful Suzi (out to destroy independent schools) Leather!!
I wonder how many anti-hunting activists are vegetarians
I'm sure there are many well meaning members of the LACS but whoever thought this stunt up needs a slap.
The RSPCA has been turned into a political organisation, the RSPB decides our wind-power policies and now LACS are attempting to influence an election.
FFS - who do they think they are?
Let's here what Kate Hoey has to say about it eh?
I live in the country and abhor hunting, but I'd be more impressed with this group of PC class warrirors, if they spoke out against Halal meat as well, which is even worse than hunting, because it involves many thousands more tortured animals than the few killed during hunts.
Never mind a free vote on hunting how about a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty ratified or not.
Most so-called Charities seem to exist to benefit those who run them. After all, if they succeeded in their aims, they'd have no raison d'etre.
If the incoming tory administration has a clue (and it might) it should defund all the campaigning charities. On and obviously the BBC & C4. This, together with a ban on advertising public sector jobs in the Graniand, would be a good start.
They could pretty much put paid to the labour party for ever by cutting all public funds flowing to trades unions, Unite especially.
Dare I say that (a) this will make little difference at this stage (or ever) as this dimension of Tory attitude is well known and (b) that you are pimping the work to the world with this flying faux fur outrage?
Are you a hunt saboteur yourself on the QT?
Rebel Saint: The Church of England is not a charity under the same regime as LACS. And registered third parties can be against any party as long as they don't call for a vote For one.
Johnny Norfolk: There are other charities doing cows and hens. CCWF for example.
I met a guy from the "third way" pro hunting ginger group at LP conference last year. Had an interesting chat about mutual friends. He had worked for the anti- side before, and was on the face ot it a Tory.
PS Many of YouGov's polls are push polls with tawdry commissioned questions, including ones they do for the Tories.
Flogging the idea of 'nasty party' is now so old hat; (rightly or wrongly)so firmly associated with pre-1997 Tories, that use of the expression is just unsubtle, unimaginative, biased and lazy politicking by the LACS..
If the LACS think that the public are in a mood to set aside Brown's ghastliness, Labour's incompetence, the country going broke, savings and pensions stuffed, jobs and businesses up the Swannee, education & the NHS in crisis, illegal wars, sleaze and smears, loss of freedoms, an immigration policy (sic?) out of control, and Labour MPs claiming for non-existant mortgages; and therefore write off the Tories by pathetically trying to reinforce an impression they are anti fluffy bunny, they are in a dream world.
Oh, and likely to lose more donations and support than they might otherwise gain.
These guys are dangerous.
They have no idea and whilst they may have good intentions they refuse to take professional advice, even when animal welfare is in jeopardy.
Please follow this link:
Some people may find the video disturbing.
Nulabour have been co opting the 'third sector' for years
Put a complaint into the charity commission.
My understanding of the regulations on charities and politics after the Charities Act 2006 is that
1) Charities are permitted to engage in political activity to further their aims if they consider it necessary
2) They are forbidden to actively support (note that word) any one political party or to campaign or canvass for that party
3) They must be able to demonstrate, if required to do so, that political campaigning is not their main activity but only a sideline to other activity that must fall within the scope of a charitable activity as defined by the Act (see 1)
As a result, the LACS and the CofE (and the RSPCA, for that matter) are just about OK if they tell people not to vote for a certain party, as long as they don't endorse another one. So the LACS is within its rights to attack Conservative policy on hunting if it wishes to and advise people to vote against it, even if the timing is a bit naughty.
What is surprising, however, is that I have always thought the LACS was a purely political campaigning organization - to wit, in pursuit of a change in the law to outlaw hunting - which would definitely run foul of the Charities Act. In fact, I did not realize it was a registered charity - I thought it was registered as a political pressure group.
The RSPCA, with its animal welfare work, and the CofE with the pastoral role of Vicars, its care of ancient monuments and its large school network, can both point out substantial other areas of charitable work within the meaning of the act to offset their forays into politics and policy (which is c. 10% of their overall activity in both cases). Can the LACS? I'd be surprised if they could. And that is the difference, Rebel Saint - not that it's the BNP the CofE is attacking.
Sorry for such a long reply but it is a curious point of law, and one I have had to go over many times as a charity trustee. Hope you find it interesting. The question I would suggest asking the PR guru at the LACS is "what charitable activity do you undertake to offset your political campaigning?" If he can't answer that - now there's a can of worms that might be opened up.
I have always wondered what the public reaction would be if the fox population became infected with rabies. They might be quite keen on hunting then.
It's a shame that the headline didn't match the intended message.
Angela Smith MP (Basildon) - official bag carrier to Gordon Brown - was pretty high up in the League Against Cruel Sports.
Perhaps this is why they are so 'political'.
It would be interesting to explore this link.
I am anti hunting - in the sense I would never want to chase a fox myself.
I'm increasingly changing my mind towards supporting repealing the ban, because so many anti-hunt protesters seem to be waging a 'class war' where the fox is just a useful vehicle for their politics.
I live in the countryside and can report that hunting has not stopped. Partly, I suspect, because it is an integral part of many peoples lives, the local economy and farming.
Well said Iain. I agree with you 100%.
Many charities seem to think that just because you don't agree with their political viewpoint, that you are somehow in favour of what they are fighting against.
The Hunting issue is such an old chestnut that everyone is bored to death of the subject. Also, the fact that so many people are misguidedly against it is very frustrating.
I wonder how many people who speak so vociferously against hunting own a cat? Before we ban hunting, could all those who own a cat please keep them indoors. Cats are responsible for killing more birds and small animals than any other activity in the UK by a long way. The numbers of certain birds in the UK is falling rapidly simply because of the blind eye that is turned to cat ownership.
Actually Guthrum, it's the other way around. The labour party is the "third sector" made flesh. It exists soley to advance the aims and objectives of hundreds of pressure groups, campaigning bodies and the unions (or one large union, in fact).
I'm a Conservative Cllr and a wannabe parliamentary candidate. I took part in this survey and answered this particular question by ticking "nasty party". I'm no vegetarian and I've no problem with culling animals e.g. badgers to stop TB, however this "charity" wants to stop cruel sports, so do I. It's not whether the animal lives or dies that concerns me it is that fact that people derive enjoyment from inflicting pain and death on to those animals. I simply put in it the same category as dog fighting, hare coursing, bull fighting and "big game" hunting in Africa. Animals should not be made to suffer for our amusement and those who do enjoy seeing and taking part in these activities are, in my opinion, "nasty".
Since they are so interested in gauging public opinion, please provide contact details for the LACS.
"Charity, my arse."
They aren't exactly alone in deserving that response, are they...?
I bet if you surveyed the country that the vast majority couldn't give a hoot about hunting.
This question is so loaded it's ridiculous and even then only 56% agreed with them...a large number of these would andswer this way because of their party political allegiance regardless. They should have their charitable status taken away from them, they are not a charity, they're a lobby group, there's a big difference.
I'd like to complain about Halal meat - oh, what's that? Oh, righty ho.
Anonymous 9.31. It worries me that you are an elected Tory councillor and wannabe MP, and have your facts so wrong. Have you ever been to a hunt, either one on foot or mounted? You cannot have been, because if you had you would know that very few of those following see the death, they simply aren't near enough. Of course the odd notcase enjoys inflicting suffering, but it is the chase not the death that hunt followers enjoy. Do not forget the quarry are wild animals, not pet poodles, and fear is natural to them, they survive because they safeguard themselves because of fear.The chase is only part of that.
The restrictions on charities at election time are not a consequence of charity law, but rather electoral law - and the LGA. See http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/supportingcharities/elect.asp
But this certainly seems to break the rules. Suggest complaints to both the charity and electoral commissions.
I dislike the LAS too and disagree with their aims, but when you have supporters who attack the CofE for criticising a fascist party, urge people to vote for UKIP, attack the editorial independence of the BBC, C4, etc., etc., you might begin to agree that, just possibly, the LAS has a point about nastiness.
The Charity Commission will not be happy about this. Seeing as I work for a charity, I'm constantly reminded of their strict rules. Rememeber the Smith Institute crossing the line? How is this any beter?
Well, anyone who thinks that the LACS is a 'compassionate' organisation should take a look at their deer sanctuary in Somerset.
It is an absolute disgrace.
I thought the Tories were the party of law n order, so why don't we hear condemnation of the police's decision not to prosecute hunting from them?
Totally lame picking on LACS when the police are simply refusing to do their job while wasting their resourses beating up stroppy lefties.
Is that not political?
Fox hunting is sick and the people who do it are psychopaths and should be locked up.
And I'm a vegan before that twit Ludvig wossame asks.
Anonymous 9.31. It is the enjoyment that evidently offends you.
In my experience opposition to hunting is fuelled more by hatred of people than by love of animals.
They have to ask loaded questions....the only people they appeal to are `The Great Unwashed`...and they all hate the Tories anyway....load of irrelevance if you ask me
There is ,as we all know a long history of the anti hunting constituency and Labour Party.
Why not let them have their way and release corrupt MP`s into the wild to be pursued by the mob with dogs and Daily Telegraphs . I would be delighted to smear the blood of Alan Duncan and James Purnell both of whom think they are going to get away with it .
Quick quick Duncans breaking cover !
They don't qualify for listing on fakecharities.org, alas: almost all of their funding appears to be voluntary (over £1.6 million in legacies)...
“Who funds this bunch of commies?” – they have less than 8,000 members world wide and most of them are dole whallah lentil knitters with out the proverbial pot, so LACS are pretty much exclusively funded by Paul McCartney whose choice of wife suggests his moral compass is about as skewed as that of the ‘one eyed son of the manse’.
More interesting is who they fund. LACS, IFAW and the RSPCA jointly bunged New Labour £1million at about the same time as the infamous Bernie Ecclestone donation. So it’s topical in this time of the MPs’ expenses scandal to have a this group of pond life with a demonstrable track record of ‘cash for legislation’ with New Labour crawl out from under their rock.
The LACS are a bunch of tosspots and Labour should never have wasted so much parliamentary time banning hunting (although I suppose it stopped the doing something else more damaging to the UK).
But don't delude yourselves that hunting is anything to do with managing the fox population. It's totally irrelevant to fox numbers.
It's just a nice day out with like-minded friends. You get some exercise, see some beautiful countryside, have a moan about lefties, have a few drinks, and congratulate yourself that you are part of something important...
I'm not a fan of hunting. You don't need to turn fox management into a party but it was a bit distasteful for the government to spend time banning hunting when you've just invaded two countries on a shameful pretext. By the same token it's irritating to see a lot of posh people getting exercised about holding fox killing parties when you would have thought there were more important issues to worry about. The protest about the fox hunting ban is about politics and class not about countryside management. At the end of the day there's a limit to how much I need to worry about the moral choices of others but I don't think fox hunting really has a place in a modern country.
The poll is obviously designed to make a political point but it should make the tories think hard about their image and their policies. Obviously they still have some work to do in that regard. As for the CofE, they may just about be within the rules by telling people who not to vote for, but the fact they are the established church of the UK with the Queen at its head means they crossed a line they shouldn't have.
Sounds like they know which buttons to push. good luck to them. Hunting is despicable and archaic.
A point I can agree (in at least part) with Cheis Paul on.
Pollsters are in it for the money. They will do a poll for say pro AGW people which are loaded into producing pro global warming opinions.
Where their reputation rests on predicting a general election result they will try to be objective and accurate.
But otherwise - forget it. They will just peddle their clients prejudice.
"We conducted polling to highlight how David Cameron is out of touch with public opinion on the issue of hunting" sounds to me like a definition of push-polling.
I used to be anti-hunting. But since this government started banning things left, right, and centre, I've gradually come to see the hunts as part of the core resistance to a bullying government.
I'll most likely never approve of hunting. But just because I don't like something doesn't mean it should be banned.
I'm sick of these 'fake' charities/lobbying groups. The Charity Commission itself needs a thorough rodding out and rules tightened to prevent this type of political campaigning. 12 years of New Labour have sullied the concept of 'charity'and trodden it into the ground.
...and the public are hugely misinformed on hunting.
LACS is not a fake charity because it doesn't receive money from the Government. But if it gives money to a political party, doesn't that make it a fake charity?
It's no surprise about YouGov. I used to work for a pointless pressure group. Our Chairman wanted to gather some headline-grabbing stastics in order to justify our existence. He fired off his loaded question to several polling companies, who all wrote back to demand that the question be rephrased in order to make it value-neutral. All except one, that is. They pocketed the cash and we got our desired poll result.
Good for LAS.
Once again they made you look like a fool for not having even a passing knowledge of the legislation you cite with apparent authority.
How do you still get work?
If you and your party sup with such odious people as those who get a kick from chasing and killing British wildlife then it is no surprise that you get flack for it. You have not seen anything yet!
You are the poltical mouthpieces of the Countryside Alliance bloodsports organisation and they will be the ruin of you..
Notice how you have got your nickers in a twist. It shows just how this subject worries you and so it should.
I really think these tosspots are trying to be controversial in a vain attempt to generate more revenue.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if their cashflow is plummeting during these tough times. I guess its better to be noticed than ignored.
Besides, foxes are pricks, as any farmer will tell you. I've known them to enter a chicken coop, slaughter ever single one and not eat a single one. They are vermin that need to be treated as such.
Watching hunt sabateurs blunder into the hands of robust farm labourers is always a good laugh though.
Sod the greens and their ilk.
Nearly all the bases have been covered here, though this
may cast some light on the reality of "animal lovers"
Also, I keep chickens. I have suffered four fox attacks in five years. I invite all stinkies and vegans to come and look at the way a fox kills chickens. The fox does not kill to eat, it kills because it likes killing.
Hunt supporters do not injure babies or decapitate sabs with helicopter blades. Neither to they send poison letters or exhume grannies.
If you want to know who has the moral high ground on this, just look at the facts.
Meanwhile, if it had not been for the fact that Damien McBride had left Downing Street, I would have guessed this had all the hallmarks of a Number Ten black propaganda operation.
Hey Ho, the feckers are all toast anyway. This just smacks of desperation politics.
And thank you Iain for posting it.
Breed pitbulls to attack certain people !!! know who I mean !!
The Charity Commission, as the independent regulator for charities in England and Wales, is aware of this issue and looking into it to see what regulatory role, if any, there may be for us. We will not comment further on this specific case at this stage, but guidance for charities on campaigning (called Speaking Out - CC9), and guidance for charities during election periods, is available on our website here: http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/ccpubs3.asp
Either they are a charity or a Registered Third Party.
They should decide what they want to be.
Meanwhile, the campaign group: "Ban Childworkers from our Mines" will issue a press release, soon.
So many 'charities' are simply lobby groups.
By being a registered charity does that enable you to evade tax or something? Eg. Church of England can reclaim back a portion of donations if you fill in your details?
Well there goes a large part of their subscriptions from rural areas! Stupid Left Wing idiots. Foxes near chicken runs should be shot on sight.
Generally, I'm ag'in hunting for sport, but banning sticking ceremony on something distasteful that was going to happen anyway is a bridge too far.
I mean what next, banning abortion parties where groups of young mothers sitting around drinking spirits and cheering that they've got their lives back?
It might be distasteful, but it probably shouldn't be illegal, provided that the hunters take legal responsibility for any damage caused during the hunt - I know of one girl whose cat was killed when the hounds decided to follow the fox through their land.
That said, there's been far too much ink and parliamentary time wasted on this subject - and bringing back target shooting has been waiting for longer.
I may be completely wrong about this, but wasn't YouGov founded by the same Stephan Shakespeare who funds ConservativeHome.com?
Iain, it looks like the LAC were just using the normal anti-BNP tricks on the Tories here.
It's a real crap way of dealing with opponents, it just trolls people, ossifies positions and makes the people who pull the stunt look stupid and the victims reasonable.
Losers all round.
Stop blaming foxes for your mistakes, you leave your chooks unprotected in sloppily build shelters and of course the fox is going to dine (duh)
Oh another thing Wrinkled Weasel: have you ever watched a cat and the birds?
Most cats just are not fast enough, and the birds they catch are either sick or old.
And no cat can sneak out with the entire local bird population not reporting on it's every movement either. Also, cats don't do flying very well, and so, mice are far easier to catch anyway.
Talking of flying -- how many magpies and crows do you have round your way?
Because those guys actually go into nests (cats don't usually climb trees because getting down is always an issue) and empty them out wholesale of eggs and/or chicks. Check it out in spring, watch the parents try and get the magpie gangs away from their nests -- they also do team work, one party goads the other raids.
To June - I'm a hunting activist and I am vegetarian
To the rest of you - the hunting ban exists, get over it, live with it, move on!
Their charitable objects state that they engage in political campaigning and, on checking, they are indeed a Third Party registered with the Electoral Commission.
So I don't see anything wrong in what they've done.
If they had said "Tory Bad, Labour Good", it would be a different story. But they didn't. Good luck to them - I actually think it's rather ingenious!
I cannot believe that even astute political analysts like Ian Dale have not done a "back of an envelope' calculation as to just how many ordinary citizens have felt betrayed but the current administration over single issues such as hunting, smoking etc. This must add up to a significant vote to whom ever promises to address perceived wrongs.
Not a cheep from LACS re angling - they are utter hypocrites. I took them to task a couple of years ago when their site displayed a lengthy policy on every activity under the sun involving animals.
However, on angling it said "The League has no policy on angling." Even this has now disappeared.
Several million people go angling every week. That means the needless distress or death of millions of fish and the killing of millions of grubs and worms.
I concluded that since angling is largely a working-class sport they didn't want to upset too many donors and Labour voters.
....interestingly LACS have also been making noises about direct campaign support in marginal seats in response to the hunting fraternity's Vote OK operation. Given they've a fraction of the membership of the Countryside Alliance it's pretty evidently hot air rather than real feet on the street.
But you might like to consider this Iain. Vote OK is apparently wholly separate from the Countryside Alliance to keep to the Countryside Alliance's charitable status. LACS doing the same things as Vote OK and still claiming charitable status presumably is also a breach of said charitable status.
Typically hypocritical class warriors, screaming like banshies about 'the Hunting Act is law' and then flagrantly breaking the laws on charitable status and political donations for legislation.
Those accusing LACS and campaigners like myself should search the internet before spouting off. I'm a avid campaigner against hunting, yet I find time to protest against halal.
In the last few months I've done two demo's against religious slaughter [one outside a slaughterhouse] and I have more planned.
Now what are you lot going to do about it? Or are your accusations just some lousy way of having a go at compassionate people for daring to speak out against hunting [for fun] atrocities?
It never ceases to astound me how people like CT can make such ridiculous remarks, comparing foxes to worms and grubs. I mean I could make that comparison with you lot, you're all so ignorant.
Other nonsense remarks were the usual class hatred thingy, which is complete rubbish. Hunting with dogs is as much a poor man's blood-sport as the rich. Hell, one of my neighbours, a gas fitter, goes out with the local mounted hunt.
Terrier-work is a nasty part of hunting, employed to dig out a terrified vixen [gone to ground], possibly pregnant, throw her [stinking in her own blood and urine]into a sack, then release her just ahead of the hounds. This is routine for most hunts if they want to prolong the chase. Problem is for the poor fox, even the worst hounds in the world will track her down.
Now any of you who think this kind of cruelty is acceptable, have to be dangerously physcotic and should be locked up.
The Tory party is out of touch on hunting and would lose votes over this issue. The existing laws against hunting need to be enforced and strengthened.
Anonymous @ 9:21
Are fish, grubs and worms not cuddly enough for you?
Please tell us why you think that the killing of a relatively small number of animals for pleasure is a bad thing but that the pointless death of millions of others needn't concern us at all.
If the quality of the pro-hunting arguments posted here are anything to go by, the Conservatives should be very concerned about jumping into bed with the hunting lobby. If the Conservatives really want to be regarded as modern and compassionate by core voters, party strategists should consider how this makes the party appear.
It isn't a vote decider on its own, but certainly adds to the drip, drip of the 'nasty party' tag so difficult to shake off. Expect much more of this in the coming months - something Cameron can well do without.
Hey CT, I happen to love all animals, including fish! But the people commenting on this blog have some serious issues if they see nothing wrong with abusing an animal for the fun of it.
I've witnessed a vixen being dug out along with her cubs after coming across a hunt in progress. The poor animal was screaming and absolutely terrified, I could see the trauma in her face. Her cubs were whimpering too and it destroyed me knowing I could do nothing to help them.
But if I ever come across this kind of torture again, God help the b*****ds doing the killing, because I won't be able to stop myself from wading in!!!!!!!!!!!
Now all you other poor excuses for human beings, do try to find a conscience.
Anyone who thinks foxes kill 'for fun' knows nothing about the species. I am well aware of how foxes kill and understand that they do it to survive. If they leave dead chickens in a coop, it is generally because they have been disturbed. A number of years ago I worked with ex-batt chickens and find that rats are actually a bigger problem on farms, however if your coop is secured sufficiently you won't have a problem. Rats, foxes, etc. might try to get in, but they won't be able to if you are keeping your chickens properly.
May I also remind you that, if you choose to live in the countryside, you are encroaching on the fox's natural habitat and should put up with them as such. I have no problem with culling or hunting for food, if done humanely; fox hunting with dogs is not humane. It is also ironic that the people who campaign against the fox as 'evil' and 'a senseless killer' also support the species being eradicated in the same manner. Surely that makes you no better than the 'vermin' you so vehemently despise.
Post a Comment