Latest News from Positive Action in Housing

51 responses so far ↓

• paih // August 22, 2007 at 1:20 pm

  UPDATE FROM UNITY CENTRE GLASGOW:

  The trial of the African woman who has been charged with assaulting the police has been postponed until Monday September 3rd.

  It is vital that we show our support for this brave woman. The Home Office and police want to scapegoat her we must stand together and support her.

  Please come to the solidarity demonstration outside Glasgow Sheriff Court at 10.00 on Monday 3rd September.

  A flyer about the trial is attached - please give it to as many people as possible

  Glasgow Sheriff is near the Central Mosque

  UNITY!
  –
  The Unity Centre
  30 Ibrox Street
  Glasgow G51 1AQ

  0141 427 7992

  theunitycentre@btconnect.com
  http://www.unitycentreglasgow.org

• shuck // August 28, 2007 at 9:47 pm

  Who do you expect to believe this pro failed asylum seekers propoganda. What proof do you have that this failed sylum seeker received such treatment?

  I take it that whoever wrote this story has a vivid imagination? JACKANORY.

• Julie Higgins // August 30, 2007 at 10:46 am

  “What proof do you have that this failed sylum seeker received such treatment? ”

  Well for starts, the immigration officers carry video recording equipment, so that seems pretty evidential to me.

  Also, many women report being treated like this in detention centres, again with no justice.

  Women have also not been allowed to visit the toilet without someone going with them, touch their children, feed their children, pack their own belongings or say goodbye to friends etc.

  If the Home Office believes that the above message is ‘propaganda’ then why not show the public these videos?

  We have seen raids on terrorists, drugs dealers or criminals blasted all over the TV before, why not raids on single mothers, who have done nothing wrong, but ask for help for them and their children?

• shuck // September 2, 2007 at 3:42 pm

  You realy are living in cloud cookoo land. You did not answer my question “What proof do you have that this took place? were you present? I suppose not. Have you seen he video? I take it that you believe this failed asylum seeker who has no doubt tried her hardest to stop her ligitimate removal from the UK? Please anyone who takes an interest in this site do not listen to this propoganda. Do you honestly believe that the officers from the Immigration service would treat anyone in such a manner? The officers from the immigration service are simply carrying out their job and I’m sure hat they could do without such utter nonesense being written about them.

  STOP THE NONESENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• shuck // September 2, 2007 at 3:51 pm

  What should the UK do about failed asylum seekers? Should they be removed? after all their asylum claims have been found to be no more than lies and deceit. All they seem to do is appeal, appeal and appeal. This country should take a leaf out of the Austrailian Governments book and clamp down on these liars cheats and thiefs.
  Dont get me wrong I believe that the UK should provide a safe heaven for people fleeing GENUINE persecution, however in my view the majorty of failed asylum seekers in the UK are simply abusing the asylum system of this country in order to remain in the UK for financial betterment.

  Get real and go home!!!!!!!

• shuck // September 4, 2007 at 7:12 pm

  Any comments on the recent arrest of 4 Kurdish males for the murder of a prositute in Glasgow? Are these 4 men asylum seekers?

• shuck // September 4, 2007 at 7:13 pm

  That should read Prostitute.

• Micky Rock // September 5, 2007 at 9:07 pm

  Shuck,

  You ask what the UK should do about failed Asylum seekers.
  I believe that all these people should get a chance of accepting a voluntary trip to their home country and give them some money to start again (if they don’t have any). This would be a very humane way to deal with the situation and allow these people who have had their case and subsequent appeals refused return to their country with dignity.

  If they fail to return home when asked then they really only have themselves to blame if Immigration come calling to detain them to return them to their country. If this happens then there is no use bleating about detaining the children as the parents know the risk they are taking and the blame lies firmly at their door as they have put their innocent children in that situation.

  Furthermore, I’m of the believe that the most genuine Asylum seekers could never afford to get to the UK as they could never pay the scum agents who arrange illegal travel to the UK at extortonate prices. Their prices are so high that the most worthy cases could never get to the UK.

• UNITY // September 15, 2007 at 12:15 pm

  A good honest jury of 15 Scots found the African woman NOT GUILTY of ALL charges after three days of the Immigration Officals and Strathclyde Police giving evidence. On oath the police and Home Office officials admitted using excessive on the five month pregnant naked woman; removing her three year old son from her for a week and taking her out of her house wearing just a t-shirt.
  The jury took less than one hour to find her NOT GUILTY

• shuck // September 19, 2007 at 7:39 pm

  Will she now be removed as planned?

• Steven Preston // September 21, 2007 at 11:06 am

  I hope not, she seems to have been through alot more trauma.

  I hope her claim has been looked upon fairly.

• milgram // September 21, 2007 at 11:37 am

  Shuck says: “Do you honestly believe that the officers from the Immigration service would treat anyone in such a manner? The officers from the immigration service are simply carrying out their job”

  I say: YES, because the nature of the job is that they can do things like this and are never get held to account. Like surgeons, most of their mistakes are buried.

• shuck // September 24, 2007 at 4:36 pm

  Why would you doubt that her asylum claim was not considered fairly? If , as i suspect her asylum claim was no more than a weak attempt to prolong her stay in the UK, then she should be removed immediately. I get the impression that you are on the side of the tree huggers here? Please do not be so niave as to think that all those poor failed asylum seekers have had their asylum claims refused just for the sake of it. These people are given every opportunity to satisfy the UK authorities of their need for international protection,and more often than not they have been found wanting and thier claims are found to be no more than lies and deceit? Wake up and smell the coffee Steven and Milgram!!!

• Michael Woods // September 27, 2007 at 6:05 pm

  I think Shuck is displaying the intolerant and provocative tendencies so often previously displayed on this kind blog by people who have generally failed to venture outside in the dark.
  The fact that an asylum-seeker is refused leave to stay does not mean that their story is untrue, merely that it is not beleived.
  Major difference.
  If you are going to label people completely unknown to you as liars and deceivers then you have no defence against someone to whom only your writings are known labelling you as a bigot and a fool. Or some kind of xenophobic twat perhaps. But of course only if they chose to do so.

• shuck // October 1, 2007 at 7:58 pm

  You are an angry and aggressive person are you not? Take a chill pill!

  Why would the immigration authorities refuse an asylum claim on the basis that they did not believe the story of an asylum seeker? Maybe because they found it to be untrue? Maybe because the asylum seeker lied? Maybe because they were advised to abuse the asylum system of the UK by do-gooders or greedy solicitors in order to prolong their stay?
  Untrue/not believed???????????? get real!!!

  I have absolutely no problem welcoming genuine asylum seekers to the UK. It is correct that the UK should be considered as a safe heaven for those fleeing genuine persecution. However, as I am sure you realise, not all who claim to be in need of international protection truly require it.
  I am a taxpayer in this counrty and grudge having to pay for the liars cheats and thieves, who abuse the asylum system in the UK in order to prolong their stay here.
  Wake up and smell the truth my friend!!!!!!

• Michael Woods // October 3, 2007 at 2:49 pm

  That is a lot of maybes. I applaud you for backing away from your previous stance and entering the world of less-than-certainties, well done Shuck for saying -
  “I have absolutely no problem welcoming genuine asylum seekers to the UK. It is correct that the UK should be considered as a safe heaven (sic) for those fleeing genuine persecution.”-
  I, for one, could not agree more Shuck, this is a very wealthy country and a far higher percentage of that wealth should be spent on worthy causes like pulling people out of destitution.
  Also you said -” I am a taxpayer in this counrty (sic) and grudge having to pay for the liars cheats and thieves, who abuse the asylum system in the UK in order to prolong their stay here.” -
  I take it you, in your new-found spirit of brotherhood include the wealthy tax-refugees who do exactly that and I applaud your having a dig at those who pay so little to escape nothing but their obligations at home.
  The truth is rather fragrant this fine day, no ?

• shuck // October 4, 2007 at 5:47 pm

  You really must concentrate more. I hold only one position and that position is clear. Now CONCENTRATE!!!!!
  I have absolutely no problem welcoming genuine asylum seekers to the UK. It is correct that the UK should be considered as a safe heaven for those fleeing genuine persecution. Therefore I 100% support these people. However, as I am sure you realise, (well I hope you do?) not all who claim to be in need of international protection truly require it.
  I am a taxpayer in this counrty and grudge having to pay for the liars cheats and thieves, who abuse the asylum system in the UK in order to prolong their stay here.
  You really must get to grips with he issues regarding Genuine Asylum Seekers and Economic Migrants who pose as Genuine Asylum Seekers. These imposter are encouraged by do-gooders and corrupt solicitors
  to abuse the asylum system of the UK in order to prolong thier stay in the UK.

  I would not be surprised if you are the type of person who believes that we only have genuine asylum seekers in the UK?

  Wake up mate!!!!!!!!

• Michael Woods // October 5, 2007 at 1:29 pm

  Shuck.
  I applaud your sense of community when you say -”I have absolutely no problem welcoming genuine asylum seekers to the UK. “-
  I agree with you 100% when you say -”It is correct that the UK should be considered as a safe heaven for those fleeing genuine persecution” -
  And I am glad you’ve re-iterated your condemnation of those Economic Migrants who abuse the system by dodging tax elsewhere. Let them live in Monaco or somewhere hellish like that, quite right mate.

• shuck // October 8, 2007 at 4:30 pm

  You really do not get it!

  Ok , I will keep it simple for you; Do you believe that all asylum seekers in the UK are genuine?

• Michael Woods // October 10, 2007 at 3:22 pm

  Until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt in law, yes.

• shuck // October 10, 2007 at 5:34 pm

  No Comment?

• Michael Woods // October 11, 2007 at 10:04 am

  Until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt in law means just that. Not story dismissed by some lowly immigration official mindful of his obligation to meet departmental quotas, his untutored opinion then used as a plank of the evidence against the asylum-seeker.
  The Law was always intended to be used as a defence for those with no other recourse not, as now, a cudgel with which to beat them.
  No comment - wise move.

• shuck // October 11, 2007 at 8:40 pm

  You have a real knack of not answering questions directly. Why don’t you?
  Can I confirm whether you believe that all who claim asylum do so because they require international protection? (still no answer from you?)
  Do you accept that the asylum system of the UK can and is being abused by economic migrants who for their own financial benefit consiously decide to claim asylum rather than being honest? (Rememember to differentiate between GENUINE asylum seekers and economic migrants posing as GENUINE asylum seekers)

  Furthermore, as you will no doubt accept the majority of asylum seekers who are refused asylum (considered by thick immigration officials?) and appeal this negative decision through our Judiciary are unsuccessful and are more than often refused after several JR appeals/stages ( at a considerable cost to the taxpayer) …………. At what point then do you accept that these people should return or be returned to their own country?

• shuck // October 12, 2007 at 6:51 pm

  No comment? or have you finally came to your senses and realised that not all of your so called friends are what they claim to be?

• Michael Woods // October 13, 2007 at 9:00 am

  When you say -”I have absolutely no problem welcoming genuine asylum seekers to the UK”- you accept that all those who seek asylum are genuine whatever the underlying reasons purely because they have sought asylum.
  That is the definition of an asylum-seeker - one who seeks asylum. Is it really that difficult a concept ?
  You therefore argue against your own arguments against their seeking of asylum in the UK. Having brought forward no compelling reasoning against their doing so except that you really don’t want asylum-seekers here and they use our resources your argument seems weak , selfish and devoid of merit.
  All your attempts at economic reasoning fail so long as we spend vast sums daily on waging war in their homelands and avert our eyes from the atrocities visited on many of them elsewhere.

  So you think immigration officials are thick
  -”(considered by thick immigration officials?) “- in your previous post.
  I can’t speak from personal experience but I’ll take your word on it.

  I’m sure you’ll agree then that they should have their powers removed and be held fully responsible for any breaches of the international and human rights legislation in which they have been involved, personally or as a member of an organisation. Which law says they should not be held responsible ?
  Their lack of intellect, which you earlier pointed out, being no excuse by the way.
  The big boy told me to do it excuse is equally invalid.
  Asylum-seekers should never be returned to the place from which they fled until we are certain beyond any doubt they would be safe, but, their children brought up here should automatically be given full UK citizenship without reservation. The asylum-seekers I have met seem to me to be decent people with a real sense of community and society and have only enhanced my life.
  Whereas the average ned or chav, or whatever you call the buckie-swilling low-life sociopaths who make our streets dangerous and filthy, does nothing but destroy communities.
  We allow them the full privileges of society whilst attempting to deny privileges to far more worthy and acceptable people on the spurious basis of nationality.
  I find your arguments baseless and frankly distasteful, they do nothing to promote any form of social cohesion but rather appear to be the product of a dislike of “other” designed to promote a monocultural white society at odds with any manifestation of a culture different in any way to ours.
  Bad choice Adolph.

• Brian // October 19, 2007 at 10:16 am

  Mr Woods do you have a problem with your memory? Do you recall writing

  “Until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt in law means just that. Not story dismissed by some lowly immigration official mindful of his obligation to meet departmental quotas, his untutored opinion then used as a plank of the evidence against the asylum-seeker”

  So it was you and not shuck who stated that Immigration officials are thick, was it not?

  I have followed this debate and I have to comment that you have not answered many of shucks points. Maybe you are unable to because you do not understand many of the issues regarding the abuses of immigration law by many economic migrants.

  I would be interested to find out your answer to the question shuck posed for you “Do you accept that the asylum system of the UK can and is being abused by economic migrants who for their own financial benefit consiously decide to claim asylum rather than being honest? (Rememember to differentiate between GENUINE asylum seekers and economic migrants posing as GENUINE asylum seekers)
  “.
  Mr Woods you have to open your mind to other aspects of a topic other than youir own.

  It is all about having a balanced argument.

• Michael Woods // October 21, 2007 at 4:45 pm

  Mr Brian.
  Show me where I said thick because I can’t find it in my post.
  Whereas I can find it in Shuck’s.
  He completely volunteered that opinion of Immigration Officials.
  Untutored means not learned whereas thick generally means stupid.
  The questions you refer to only pretend to be questions because they contain their own answers. If he asks me a serious question I’ll answer it but he seems incapable of framing a question outside his own prejudices.
  Nice to see yet another impartial observer coming out of the closet and making his presence felt.

• Michael Woods // October 23, 2007 at 11:22 am

  Mr Brian,
  do you have a problem with your reading?
  Having re-visited my post and Shuck’s it is very clear to me that he used the expression “(considered by thick immigration officials?) ” he has said nothing since to apologise to the entire department of officials he maligned and has not retracted that scurrilous remark.
  As for the question - everyone is innocent until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law as I am sure I have previously remarked on this very page.
  I will try very hard to be more open to the arguments of others. Just not Shuck’s or McKenzie’s or True Glaswegian or The Wise One or whatever he calls himself this week.
  To be quite honest Brain as you defend him, however ineptly, you appear to be sympathetic to the xenophobic view people like him are afflicted with.
  Forgive me for my lack of sympathy for you but I just can’t help disliking the idea that already destitute and downtrodden refugees should be so harshly dealt with within a system manifestly designed to be benign and just.

• Michael Woods // October 23, 2007 at 12:38 pm

  Oops, memory must be going, I think I just posted twice. Sorry, what was your name ? Come to that what’s my name, who ?? Speak up man !

• shuck // October 23, 2007 at 4:54 pm

  Here Here Brian. I have never got a straight answer from this guy, but it does not surprise me as it is obvious he has VERY LIMITED TUNNEL VISION.

  I would also be grateful if Mr Woods would answer my very straight forward questions.

  Thanks also Brian for pointing out that it was in indeed Mr Woods who stated that Immigration officials are not the brightest.

  Small minds eh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  Can you?

• paih // October 25, 2007 at 10:11 am

  PAIH MODERATOR - Please make sure you enter an accurate/active E-Mail address, as this may affect your post from being approved.

• Michael Woods // October 25, 2007 at 4:29 pm

  Shuck,
  you really shouldnt put you and poor Brain down like that, your minds are probably not that small, just misguided perhaps.
  Although you do understand written English less well than many asylum-seeker children after only a short time in school, I must say.

  The facts are that many asylum-seekers are being mistreated on a daily basis.
  The evidence for this is strong and ubiquitous.
  The evidence for your “economic-migrants disguised as refugees” hypothesis is low to non-existent.
  If I am wrong about that post some proof on this blog.
  We as a nation must take responsibility for these outrages against common decency.
  That families are separated and kept in bad conditions by our public authorities.
  That parents are arrested in front of their terrified children.
  That women - assaulted by anybody’s standards - should themselves be charged with assault to mitigate the bullyboy tactics used against them.

  We should just not do it. These are the acts of banana republic dictatorships not a modern first-world country.
  You as free citizens of this country should be ashamed of your attitudes toward these unfortunate people. You attempt to deny them what little they have by wrenching it from them and their children.
  Children.
  As for your question - it’s rubbish.

• shuck // October 25, 2007 at 4:32 pm

  Mr Woods, Mr Woods is it not about time you stopped accusing people of being xenophobic or having political views sinilar to that of that of the late Adolf Hitler simply because they refuse to agree with everything you say?

  Yes Brian is right, it about a balanced argument. Let me explain in simple terms what that means to our debate
  1) Understanding the Asylum system of the UK.
  2) Being able to differentiate between Genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants posing as asylum seekers
  3) Accepting that the UK has an obligation to offer genuine refugees a safe heaven.
  4) Accepting that failed asylum seekers should be removed from the UK, including children of.
  5) Being aware that the asylum system of the UK can and is being abused by many economic migrants simply in order to prolong their stay in the UK.
  6) Understnd that Immigration Officials in the UK work to the law of the land.
  7) Accept that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
  Be able to understand both sides of an argument in order to enter into intelligent debate,

  Mr woods it really is that simple or are you too simple to understand it?

• Michael Woods // October 29, 2007 at 11:00 am

  I refer you to the previous posts.

• shuck // October 30, 2007 at 3:53 pm

  I take it that by leaving that response, you really are to simple to understand it?

• shuck // October 30, 2007 at 4:02 pm

  Do you beleive that the Chinese man recently sentenced to 5 years in prison and recommended for deportation for the cultivation of Cannibis came to the UK as a genuine asylum seeker or do you think his intention was to come to this country to trade in this vile substance?

  Why do you think he would want to claim asylum?

• Michael Woods // November 1, 2007 at 5:58 pm

  I again refer you to the previous posts.

• shuck // November 1, 2007 at 6:58 pm

  What have your previous posts got to do with this issue? Are you running scared Mr Woods or are you too narrow minded to consider this issue impartially?

  In a previous post you wrote:

  “If he asks me a serious question I’ll answer it but he seems incapable of framing a question outside his own prejudices”
  Surely even you would agree that this is a very serious issue and that the question i posed you is serious and without prejudice. I will therefore give you the opportunity to address this serious question Mr Woods.

  In an earlier post you stated that:

  “Asylum-seekers should never be returned to the place from which they fled until we are certain beyond any doubt they would be safe”

  You also said:

  “As for the question - everyone is innocent until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law as I am sure I have previously remarked on this very page”

  Can I confirm then that you accept that after a failed asylum seeker has exhausted all appeal rights and it is considered safe for him to return to his own country he should be removed from the UK?

  How do you propose that they are removed?

• Michael Woods // November 2, 2007 at 3:22 pm

  If you insist.
  Read the dictionary definitions of the words -
  “certain” as in “certain beyond any doubt they would be safe”
  and -
  “considered” as in “considered safe for him to return”.
  I’m sure even you might discern a critical and major difference between the two words as used above. Or perhaps not. I’ve given up hoping you and Brain might of your own accord actually read what’s posted.
  The more immigrants the better as far as i’m concerned my life is certainly richer because of the variety of cultures in Britain today.
  According to real experts ( radio 4 a few days ago ) we need an optimum population of about 70 - 75 million to sustain our society. We need millions more immigrants.They are who will be working to support you in your dotage.
  So throw away the military-band music and dream no more about stormtroopers in riding-boots and address your hippie side.
  You know you want to really.

• shuck // November 2, 2007 at 5:31 pm

  I welcome within reason more immigrants to this counrty, but not illegal economic migrants who pose as asylum seekers once they come to the attention of the UK authorities. These people should be removed ASAP as they are nothing but leeches.
  So far, You have failed to answer or debate any of the very serious issues raised in this blog.

  [FROM THE MODERATOR: ABUSIVE COMMENTS WERE DELETED - FIRST WARNING: ANY FURTHER ABUSIVE POSTS ON THIS SITE WILL MEAN YOU LOSE YOUR APPROVED CONTRIBUTER STATUS]

• Michael Woods // November 3, 2007 at 6:27 pm

  I really must refer you to the previous posts, yet again.

• shuck // November 3, 2007 at 7:46 pm

  [FROM THE MODERATOR: ABUSIVE COMMENT DELETED - YOU HAVE NOW LOST APPROVED CONTRIBUTOR STATUS - FINAL WARNING: SHOULD YOU SUBMIT ANY FURTHER ABUSIVE POSTS, WE WILL BLACKLIST YOUR IP ADDRESS FROM THIS SITE]

• Michael Woods // November 3, 2007 at 9:10 pm

  And yet again.

• shuck // November 4, 2007 at 1:17 am

  Mr Woods you are a waste of my time ,I refer you to my previous posts. GET REAL!!!!!!

• Michael Woods // November 6, 2007 at 6:06 pm

  I think I’ll now wake up, smell the coffee and the smoke and go hug a few trees with my lefty hippy friends. Sorry for wasting your time Suhck.

• shuck // November 6, 2007 at 8:13 pm

  I think you should only enter into any debate once you are prepared to consider all sides of an issue.
  Maybe in your case, you should stick to smoking whatever it is you do smoke, continue to hug a few trees and stay away from important issues, leave that for the grown ups.

• shuck // November 8, 2007 at 7:13 pm

  Why is my comment taking so long to be posted?

• Michael Woods // November 9, 2007 at 2:59 pm

  I refer you to your previous post(s).

• Ali // November 10, 2007 at 7:00 pm

  Shuck - can you honestly say that you have considered all sides of these issues? Seems to me that you say what you want to say, and then label those who disagree with you as tree hugging, hash smoking hippies, as well as other stereotypical cliches. And when that has no effect, progress to a Mackenziean rant that will cause you to be blocked from the site if you keep it up. Perhaps you should take your own advice and chill out? And consider all sides? Peace, man!

• shuck // November 11, 2007 at 12:48 pm

  Yes, I can honestly say that I have considered all sides of these issues. As you will see from my previous posts, I have a balanced understanding of the issues surrounding asulum in the UK.

  It is our good friend Mr Woods that seems to have a very one sided view, why don’t you have a word with him Ali? You never know, he may answer one of your questions!

  Can I ask you if you accept that the asylum system of the UK can and is being abused by Economic Migrants posing as asylum seekers?

  Please do not come back with a one sided rant which avoids the qustion like Mr woods, just look at my previous posts and the questions I asked Mr Woods and let me know your thoughts.
  Peace to you to Comrade!!!!!!

• Ali // November 15, 2007 at 8:35 pm

  Shuck - Here are some of my thoughts since you asked for them:

  I think there are aspects of the Asylum process that you haven’t considered and that its a lot more complicated than you seem to think. Its not on to call failed Asylum Seekers “liars cheats and thieves”. Its an adversarial system in which Immigration Officers conduct their interviews (some call them interrogations) in an atmosphere of disbelief and suspicion. They also have to adhere to all sorts of departmental, (or just mental), timescales and quotas and this can result in claims being unjustifiably refused. For example, tight timescales can mean that sometimes a claimant hasn’t had enough time to gather all the necessary evidence together that would verify their claims (these documents etc, have to travel great distances through unstable countires and most people understandably don’t think to take them with them when fleeing for their lives). Many people who are initially refused go on to win their cases on appeal and some fully refused Asylum Seekers also win judicial reviews of their cases. When someone is refused it does not automatically mean that their claims are false and that you are therefore entitled to verbally abuse them.

  Of course I accept that the system is abused sometimes, but until the system is much fairer I (and a lot of others out there) wouldn’t feel comfortable with the Government removing someone without them first having had a fair crack at the whip, so to speak. An economic migrant can also be a genuine asylum seeker too (they’re not mutually exclusive terms) as some minorities in some coutries can be (and are) persecuted because of their ethnicity. This can take the form of denying them equal access to education and economical opportnuties in life. So don’t equate the term ‘economic migrant’ with that other lovable phrase ‘bogus Asylum Seeker’, please.

  I hope that the above has answered at least some of your questions and I’m sure I haven’t had a biased rant. I would like to ask you why this subject makes you so angry, but don’t rant at me either please!

  Comrade?????? Are you calling me what you believe to be derogatory name, by any chance?

Leave a Comment