Posted by: Ms Morris | July 5, 2009

Who is driving this bus, and where is it going?

Posted by: A Visitor’s Perspective

From the PLP Mission Statement:

“The Bermuda Progressive Labour Party’s policies and programmes are meant to rekindle hope, to heal Bermuda’s present divisions and to replace apathy and alienation with a spirit of optimism and a feeling of oneness and unity. We continue to put Bermuda first, and to put Bermudians first.”
What happens when an organization strays from its mission?  What happens when members of an organization realize that their time and energy is no longer applied to achieve the goals that caused them to enlist in the first place?  It is very difficult to square recent actions and statements by the Premier and leadership of the PLP with the above-cited Mission Statement.  Do Mr. Roban’s comments about the demonstrations published on the PLP Blog site promote optimism, oneness and unity?   Are comments about “whites loss of privilege” consistent with healing present divisions?  Even just over the course of this year, there has been no shortage of actions taken by the Government that seem inconsistent with the Mission Statement, yet each time, the furor subsides with no change in Party or Government leadership.

The origin of this very site reflects a sharp philosophical difference over the nature of web-blogging between its founders and PLP leadership.  Given a choice between acquiescing to a site that wouldn’t achieve the dialogue sought by the founders and taking action, they chose the latter and formed Bermuda Jewel.

What happens when this philosophical difference occurs on a larger scale?  What if, within the PLP, there are members that are not comfortable with the actions and directions of the Party?  What are their responsibilities to their conscience, and to their constituencies?

It seems, at least from the outside, that Party leadership places great emphasis on uniformity of message, if not thought as well.  If there are Party members that believe a different platform would align better with the Mission Statement, how do they advocate their view within the Party?  And what if that argument falls on deaf ears?

The past three weeks have brought concerns, emotions and political involvement to new levels.  The creation of Bermuda Jewel, and the involvement of PLP members in organizing and speaking at  the recent demonstrations suggest that there is an element within the PLP that wants to see a change in direction.  The actions of Wayne Perinchief, Randy Horton and former Premier Alex Scott in late April carry a similar suggestion.

How should those that seek change within the PLP follow their conscience?  How should they assess the risk of challenging Party leadership?  And what urgency should they feel in assessing a course of action?  Is it sufficient to wait for the October AGC?  Does waiting four months effectively confirm Dr. Brown’s observation that, “this, too, shall pass”? Or should they more aggressively seek a change in Party direction, through a Special Delegates Meeting or any other means provided for in the Constitution of the Party?

There comes a time when, traveling down the road toward a destination, that a passenger realizes that the bus is going in the wrong direction.  The passenger may be silent, in hopes that, eventually, the bus will find the right road, and continue its journey.  The passenger may speak to the driver, and ask them to stop for directions, or to take a different route.  Many passengers may speak to the driver and express similar thoughts.  But if the driver chooses to ignore them, then the passengers need to figure out how and when to seek a new driver.  The passengers need to assess the danger of never reaching the destination, or reaching the destination so late as to make the trip futile.  Or even more critical, the passengers need to determine whether the destination has changed, without their knowledge, to a place that they do not wish to go.  Above all, the passengers need to consider why they are on the bus, who put them there, and what those people wanted and expected when they bought the passengers’ bus ticket.

This seems to be the decision facing some members of PLP- when to be a passenger, and simply enjoy the ride, and when to take the wheel, becoming a proactive force for a change in direction.  It appears that many passengers are content to look out the window, hoping for the best in spite of the darkening view outside the bus, or are fearful of repercussions if they seek a change in direction.  It is not clear that this course of action is consistent with the Mission Statement, the desires of their constituents or the best interests of Bermuda.


  1. The PLP today is exactly the same as the Republican Party. The party of Lincoln is asunrelated to the current crop of dreamers, just as the party of Lois Browne-Evans and today’s PLP are. Both have been hijacked by a fringe group bent on their own advancement at the expense of everyone else. Both use marginalization and demonization of dissenting voices, and use quick sound-bite sayings to tweak emotions in the voters, and it works because it sounds good. Truth is virtually absent. The public ends up voting against their own best interests, because they want to believe in what has been said.

    It will take a long time until the voting population is mature enough to see past the rhetoric. It took over twenty years in the US. Only now are the GOP looking at restructuring, and most of it is in the wrong direction. Look for Bermuda to continue it’s sorry emulation of the US in that regard too.

  2. The analogy of the bus and passengers is an excellent one.

    Prior to 1998, the PLP depended for its very existence on a supporter group who were prepared to submerge all differences and stay publicly aligned with the party. This kind of discipline was essential if the party was to continue in existence and eventually acquire the strength to overthrow the party of the establishment-of-the-day (the UBP).

    That party discipline won its prize in November 1998.

    The PLP has now been governing for over ten years. The PLP is now what the UBP was. The PLP is now the establishment-of-the-day. Put another way, and coming back to your analogy, the PLP Leader is now the bus-driver.

    The passengers are us. Who are us? PLP supporters, UBP supporters, Independents, People-happy-with-things-the-way-they are, People-unhappy-with-the-way-things-are, Guest workers who don’t want to be bothered, IB bosses and Company CEO’s who simply don’t want the ‘natives’ runnin’ roun’ the place setting fires to things…..

    In all, the passengers now need to make their voices heard and their feelings/concerns responded to.

    Trouble is that today’s PLP has not grown past or matured beyond the tightly disciplined group that it once needed to be, into the different party that it has to be if it is to successfully manage the Bermuda that exists today.

    What is the Bermuda that exists today?

    It is a demographic pool at 32N64W that survives as the country with the world’s highest GDP, highest per capita income, and highest standard (as well as cost) of living. That means that – using another analogy – Bermuda is the General Motors Corp of ALL countries – large (like the USA); middle size – like Canada/UK; or small – like Caymans, Gibraltar.

    I use GMC because GMC was once the worlds largest manufacturer of vehicles. Today GMC is a battered bruised beaten giant on life support.

    Bermuda is an entity that, on the global scale, is at a peak. Bermuda is – has been -phenomenally successful. That success came about mostly through luck and happenstance.

    To maintain our peak position and maintain our economy (and keep our society as well-off as it is) will require thoughtful and intelligent management. This has to happen in a world far different from the world in which Bermuda Tourism died and Bermuda IB was born.

    Back to the analogy – Bermuda needs a bus driver who carefully chooses best roads, best courses, misses all obstacles, keeps his bus in good repair….

    What we have is a bus driver who is hitting the curbs on both sides; a small knot of pasengers who seem to think that any road chosen by the driver is a ‘best’ road; and a national habit of not questioning the bus driver.

    We’ve gotta’ grow up and grow up damn fast. We have to learn – and learn damn fast – how to get the bus driving and passenger input process working far, far better.

    We may have less than three to five years in which to achieve that. Failure means that Bermuda will fall like mighty GMC has fallen. And Bermudians will get badly hurt!

  3. I guess the key lies in the words…”because they want to believe in what has been said”.

    And therein lies the travesty, as they sit and watch a small few, hijack the aspirations of so many.

    Knowledge does not come cheap. I hope the final price is not too great.

  4. One other thought.

    It is a shame that the party could not find the strength to oust those responsible for the 03 palace coup, as Lois Browne allegedly called for.

    I guess it’s possible they would have lost the Govt, but the Party would have stood a better chance of staying true to itself and would have been re-elecetd in the fullness of time.

  5. Interesting thoughts.

    I wonder, though, if the bus is meant to represent all of Bermuda, or if it’s meant to represent the PLP, taking its membership for a ride that differs greatly from the advertisement (the Mission Statement)- hijacking aspirations, indeed.

    And if the bus is just the PLP, then maybe the passengers represent those PLP members- MPs, Senators, Party Leadership- with the power to act more quickly than the voters themselves. I wonder if the passengers need to consider who bought their ticket for them.

  6. “I wonder if the passengers need to consider who bought their ticket for them”.

    One view is that the whites bought the tickets, in trying to punish the UBP. Maybe at the next election, they will revert.

  7. ABOUT “…they sit and watch a small few, hijack the aspirations of so many.”

    I would be interested in how you would distinguish this situation from the position in every other country.

    How did we get the system we currently labour under?

    Who thought all of this up?

    Was it a collective decision? or was it something akin to what you now decry?

    And the final question for now: What is the collective manifestation of “so many” except the acceptance, or rejection of an existing power structure?

  8. Morning all – I’ve been away for a few days, but I have enjoyed catching up on the comments.

    I’ll try to give my answers to some of your questions AVP.

    How should Party members that disagree with the current direction advocate such internally?

    All Party members are allowed to attend and speak in Branch meetings and Central Committee meetings. Only actual CC members however can vote in them. There are some ongoing problems with the Branch organisation though, and there is also a risk of general (and unintentional) intimidation within such meetings. Its not easy to stand up in a room of a hundred odd people and criticise the Leader or the Party’s direction, especially so when you are unsure of parliamentary procedure (by which such meetings are ordered).

    What Party members need to do though is to get active in the Branch meetings – force them to meet as frequently as possible (certainly more than they currently do). Leanring by doing in the Branches is key, as well as giving instructions to ones delegate to the CC of what motions to present and how to vote on such and such an issue. Most members seem to not realise that they can actually propose motions to CC and that, as per the Constitution, these motions are all-powerful. I think I can only recall three motions in the CC in all the times of my attendance, one was merely procedural – a formality – and the other two came from the Youth Wing. One must also make sure that motions are not sent off to the purgatory of ‘committee discussion’. These committees never meet and never discuss and never report back. Its simply a way of buying time from the motion and quietly letting it disappear.

    Also, Branches hold the power to call for Special Delegates Conventions, but if they aren’t organised or active, they can hardly function. All of this leads to a general degeneration of the Party system and a rule by the Leadership and Cabinet simply because no one else is actually putting forward ideas.

    So getting active, building the branches, ensuring they are active in the community, participate in CC meetings, hold meetings on parliamentary procedure and learn from them, and be persistent, these are what is needed internally. One of the biggest problems with the Party really, apart from the Branch problems, is that the post of Political Educator has actually been empty for at least a decade. Roosevelt Brown I think is still listed for this post, but he hasn’t been active for years and is now passed. His name stayed there simply because no-one replaced him when he stopped. The role of the Political Educator is key for both working out the various ideologies of the Party (clarifying and articulating them) and for making sure members are knowledgeable about how to use the internal systems of the Party. In the absence of someone able to fulfil this function (I’ll do it when I get back and if no-one else has…) it is important for members to teach themselves.

    In many ways the above answers a lot of your other related questions. Members should have absolutely no fear in speaking out against the Party internally. There are no repercussions, or rather, if they are, they are less than the repercussions for all members from not speaking out. The origin of the Party was to end colonialism, both externally and internally, in that the idea of irrational authority (of order-givers and order-takers) is akin to the old plantation system of Massa and slave. It is possible to end the external one while keeping the internal colonialism, but ultimately its the internal colonialism that is key and much more important.

    Should they agitate for a Special Delegates Convention or wait for the scheduled Convention?

    That really is up to the individual member to decide, and then act on. Many people may think it is time to convene a special convention, but if no one actually says so and organises a branch meeting and puts the motion forward, it won’t happen. The same applies to the Fall Delegates Convention. The 2009 convention is not a scheduled Leadership challenge, however any motion proposed and passed on the floor of a regular Delegates Convention is all powerful. The regularly scheduled ones are just that, regularly scheduled. But a Leadership challenge can be initiated at any time, either from a Special Delegates Convention or a regular Delegates Convention. But it takes someone to actually put it forward and be able to argue effectively in favour of it.


    Members and supporters should also feel free to speak their mind at any time, both internally and externally. Its true that the media or opposition Parties may use such actions for their own agendas, but quite frankly we all know that, so it actually isn’t all that big a deal. Who cares? The UBP is defunct. And the argument is what’s important, not who is saying what. If the issues raised should be discussed, and if valid, accepted, and if not, defeated by discussion, not by high-handed tactics involving bogey-men and spin.

    On another note, it is said that the PLP today is different from the PLP of yesterday (and invokes the analogy of the US Republican Party over time). This is only partly true. The dominant ideology of the Party no doubt has changed, but the structure of the Party – its reliance on democratic centralism (of which most Party’s operate on) – is the same, and, in fact, has facilitated the ideological change. If the Party is structured to follow the leadership and not the principles of the Party, then you have a problem – especially so when no one knows what the principles of the Party are other than that of democratic centralism – and is that really a principle?

  9. I should also stress that one of the functions of JEWEL – as I understand it and I speak for myself here – is to help start the discussions and articulate some thoughts from PLPers that would not neccessarilly be possible within the Party proper.

    Most importantly though, as the ABOUT section states, this site isn’t about reforming the PLP (although that would certainly be a good side-effect!), but about constructing a new politics founded on empowering the people, of building community activism and the like.

  10. Perhaps the way to see this is to go back to the beginning days of the PLP, i.e. it’s 1963 Election platform. The opening 3 lines are:

    Statement of Policy of the Bermuda Progressive Labour Party

    “The Bermuda Progressive Labour Party, newly organised, has set as its goal the political education of the people of Bermuda and the attainment of social and economic justice for all”.

    If anyone can demonstrate that this party which has been in Government for 11 years + has brought about the “attainment of social and economic justice for all”, I will rest my case and move on.

    For the record, I don’t think Bermuda is any different to anywhere else in the western world in so far as it makes promises, but does not/cannot deliver.

  11. “Members should have absolutely no fear in speaking out against the Party internally. There are no repercussions, or rather, if they are, they are less than the repercussions for all members from not speaking out.”


    Many thanks; clearly, there are mechanisms and structure that allow for Party members to express and act upon their views of Party leadership and direction. I guess the question becomes, what does it take for senior Party officials, let alone other Party members, to overcome inertia, fear or both and activate those mechanisms.

    It is clear that current PLP leadership has the view that, either you’re with us or agin us. And it seems there’s no shortage of incidents where non-conforming Party members has been punished (Cabinet posts revoked, etc.). It makes Dale Butler’s resignation from the Cabinet more prominent, given the absence of like actions from other PLP leaders. Yet nothing changes.

    I have to guess that it all comes down to personal risk, and the unwillingness of others (Paula Cox, et al.) to stand up in the face of Party leadership that is moving in a direction far from its founding principles and current Mission Statement. Whether fear of retribution, or loss of a position or prestige, it is disappointing to see incident after incident, with no one stepping up to use the tools made available to Party members.

    Two other quick thoughts:

    1. Point taken about Bermuda JEWEL and reforming the PLP. But given the behavior of Government, and the weakness of the UBP or any other credible alternative, political change for all of Bermuda, at least for the moment, is unlikely occur through any other mechanism but reform of the Party.

    2. With regard to Mr. Johnston’s point about distinguishing Bermuda’s current plight from other countries, I’d offer this thought: Unlike a traditional two-party system, where one party might dominate the other, but holds true to its principles, it appears that current PLP leadership have strayed from its underlying principles to a posture foreign to its ideals. Within the party in power, control has come to rest with a small group with an agenda apparently different from many other Party members. Voters do not get the ideals of the Mission Statement; they get what a small group within the Party want.

  12. Who is driving the bus? It’s on auto pilot. And, when the “pitot tube” freezes up hopefully there will be survivors.

  13. The bus has lurched again towards the wrong side of the road today driven by the astonishing comments made by Cabinet Minister Walter Roban to a member of the voting public today. What is more disturbing is that these comments were made with out fear of reprisal. If a politician in any another developed democracy made comments of this nature the consequences would be severe.

    How are we supposed to hold our politicians accountable when any criticism tabled is deflected by the impenetrable shield that is “racism”. How have we allowed our country to reach a point were this is the norm, were this is readily accepted. When did we all become so apathetic?

    I still have faith that we can regain control of our country before the bus falls off the cliff, but I am finding it increasingly difficult to find a way forward; to find a way that takes us past discussion and into action.

  14. […] blog already. I was about to choke on the latest rantings of Walter Roban this morning when I read yesterday’s post by former PLP senator Davida Morris and was reassured that there are still sensible, honourable people in the PLP who could, if they […]

  15. I guess it depends on which side of the road you are on to start with. Add to that, that in many respects this is not a developed democracy, and there is your answer.

    As to action, well…you will find Bermudians who are unhappy with the state of affairs and generally they are the ones who can see the bigger picture in the fullness of time.

    Others, have a shorter time scale and are concerned with today – and the benefits that that brings. Short term expediency? Certainly. But that is where we are on this bus journey.

  16. The plp continue to ‘burn their bridges’ as well. Few will forget Roban’s comments in his email today and the other stuff that has gone down here in the past couple of years. What plp supporters fail to grasp is that Brown does not care about the bridges!… his ensuing focus is to make it big in Washington. Nothing lasts forever. So when he is removed from the plp or resigns or is voted out, he’ll be outta here faster than Speedy Gonzales. After all, you must agree he really is an American at heart. IMHO of course.

  17. The cold hard slap in the face in all of this is that they will continue to support the leadership in the PLP until the UBP and what remains of this opposition is no more. If a VIABLE third option came forward to finally put the nail in the coffin for the UBP, you may find that those “cracks in the masonry” of the PLP may actually forge a stronger foundation.

    As of now the current leadership of our country can do as they please because there is no challenge. In the lesser of two evils the PLP will always protect itself (as they should) because the UBP opinion will NOT ever be considered.

    The UBP is a wet blanket and is actually preventing progress from happening. We need a new opposition.

  18. There’s much talk in the community about the shifting political sands and what, if anything, may evolve. Under the Westminster system, the beneficiary of shifting political sands (and by that I mean a period where the Government experiences a sustained period of criticism and less than stellar polling results), is normally the official Opposition or other political parties (where there are more than two). When political sands have shifted elsewhere, either the Opposition or a third party alternative emerged victorious at subsequent elections. What portends for Bermuda?

    The official Opposition, the UBP, continues to go through a painful, self-inflicted eleven year political surgery. The shackles of continued leadership changes, defections, a deepening unsympathetic political legacy and lack of a crystallized political purpose continue to weigh heavily against them. None of this augurs well and many anticipate the demise of the once powerful political apparatus.

    If the UBP’s days are numbered, and there are some who will challenge that assertion, then what might the political landscape look like in say, one, two or three years? Not since 1984-85 has Bermuda experienced a similar confluence of political events. For the younger readers out there, this was the period when the National Liberal Party (NLP) emerged with sitting MP’s after PLP members were expelled from the Party. Fast forward to 2009 and the confluence I refer to is a Government with openly-dissenting MP’s, cross-party criticism of political leadership and a groundswell of disparate political or politically motivated groups (BAT, Bermuda Jewel, VRA and others) and open talk of a “third way” break from the political dynasties of the PLP and UBP.

    For a “third way” to emerge, a number of pieces of a complex political puzzle have to converge too. At the very least four pieces of that puzzle must be: a credible leader, a core group of political weight-lifters to build a Party constitution and apparatus, a clear political purpose and voter support. Even those in Bermuda who optimistically hope for a third party would have to admit that the four pieces of the puzzle aren’t quite on the tabletop. It is a sobering thought that the political reality in Bermuda has not been kind to a “third way.” The NLP was relatively short lived and only once since the advent of universal adult suffrage in 1968 has an independent, Stuart Hayward MP – Pembroke West Central 1989-93, been elected. More sobering when one realizes that about half a million votes have been cast since 1968.

    The PLP core remains loyal and strong. A centralized power structure, a political machinery which can be activated quickly and the sheer ‘power’ and confidence of governance further solidifies the PLP even if there are some within and without chipping away at the edges.

    So, will the shifting political sands alter the political landscape? The political crystal ball is notoriously difficult to discern and only the most bold among us will venture to predict – and none can predict with certainty. What we can be certain about is the enormous strength and malleability of the PLP; their dynasty is likely to continue for years to come.

    One political analyst put it this way. He said Government’s lose elections when the voters answer this question in the affirmative. Have you had enough? The cross-section of responses from our voters seems to be: No. Yes, but we’ll get over it. Yes. Hmm…let me think. Enough of what?

  19. “The PLP core remains loyal and strong. A centralized power structure, a political machinery which can be activated quickly and the sheer ‘power’ and confidence of governance further solidifies the PLP even if there are some within and without chipping away at the edges.”

    Interesting and thoughtful analysis; sadly, not the happiest picture of the future.

    It does seem that you are dismissing the PLP, even ex-Dr. Brown and its current leadership, as a unifying and constructive force, and that may in fact be completely correct. It may be that even without the current leadership team, there is too much baggage to match the nobility of the Party’s mission statement with its actions. But if it’s not, it could create an accelerated, more all-Bermudian-friendly alternative to a third party.

    And I definitely agree that UBP has virtually nowhere else to go but away.

  20. A number of PLP Win’s at the last two elections were ‘very close’ to say the least.

    Whether by way of a new party or even more Independents, it shouldn’t take too much to shift/weaken the exisitng power base.

  21. Having just re-read the opening statement of this thread, it makes me wonder.

    “The Bermuda Progressive Labour Party’s policies and programmes are meant to rekindle hope, to heal Bermuda’s present divisions and to replace apathy and alienation with a spirit of optimism and a feeling of oneness and unity. We continue to put Bermuda first, and to put Bermudians first.”

    I guess that is fine as a Mission Statement, but it is questionable as to how that translates to policy over the years. Do other Governments have Mission statements?

    My definition of Government is that it is there to “decide who gets what, when, where and how. It is a body that is given the power to make and enforce rules and laws and the maintenance of basic security and public order”.

    Government cannot assume the responsibility, in a democracy to enrich the lives of society, which in myopinion, this Mission Statement tends towards.

    Maybe too, we only absorb ‘good news’ which the Mission Statement is, much as we do at election time when MP’s mkae their promises on the doorstep – with both parties knowing that it isn’t going to happen.

    Should there be any surprises when the Government moves away from the Mission? Disappointment – possibly yes. Surprise – no.

  22. Not sure about this; would offer a couple of quick thoughts.

    First, there’s a blurring on the Island between Party and Government. They’re not synonymous, yet the terms seem to be used interchangeably. But I think it’s eminently fair to expect a Party to adhere to its Mission Statement when it is in power within the Government. Otherwise, it’s false advertising.

    Second, I think your definition of government, which most conservatives would certainly endorse, needs to take into account government policy, programs and spending. In making laws and enforcing them, governments implement policy. In the US, the tax code is the best example: By giving, for example, minority-owned business tax benefits, the US government implements a policy of moving towards a more uniform distribution of wealth.

    Third, in a democracy, I believe a government does have responsibility for the well-being of its citizens. And I suppose how this admittedly vague term gets defined governs (npi) the degree to which it strays from the basic social services you’ve defined. And I think the more liberal a government, the more responsibility it takes on (making no comment here about how effectively) under this principle. But even conservative parties have a social agenda which they try to implement while in power.

    Given those observations, I’d agree that it’s disappointing to see movement away from the Mission Statement; I think given reasonable expectations and truthful campaigning, it should be surprising as well.


    As a comparison to the PLP Mission Statement, following are similar vision statements from other political parties:

    From the Republican Party Platform, 2008:

    “We offer it to our fellow Americans in the assurance that our Republican ideals are those that unify our country: Courage in the face of foreign foes. An optimistic patriotism, driven by a passion for freedom. Devotion to the inherent dignity and rights of every person. Faith in the virtues of self-reliance, civic commitment, and concern for one another. Distrust of government’s interference in people’s lives. Dedication to a rule of law that both protects and preserves liberty.”

    From the Democratic Party platform:

    “We believe that every American, whatever their background or station in life, should have the
    chance to get a good education, to work at a good job with good wages, to raise and provide
    for a family, to live in safe surroundings, and to retire with dignity and security. We believe that
    quality and affordable health care is a basic right.”

    From the Labour Party, UK:

    “The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few.

    Those democratic values have guided us through eleven years in government: everything from the large canvas of economic stability, full employment and record investment in public services, to the fine detail of the minimum wage, free museum entry and civil partnerships.”

    Conservative Parth UK: [Couldn’t find the short summary, and this post has already gone on too long. 🙂 ]

  23. plp is a joke…they have been infiltrated by black elites who only give opportunity to fellow black elietes and white elietes

    they are no longer a grass roots party

    they have squandered their political capital and wasted precious time.

    they have had a road map of 40 yrs of responces to throne speeches to refer back to in order to bring fourth the change that the people voted them in for back in 98.

    the only way to correct the plp mistake…is by getting rid of all party politics and the westminster system and bermudians create a new form of inclusive grass roots governance

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: