Big Brother marches ever so closer but in this instance it appears it will, as usual, only target males thanks to a feminist making his living off the avails of Domestic Violence, Professor Peter Jaffe at the University of Western Ontario and also appears to have gainful employment elsewhere. Note in the article how he uses bogus or very misleading percentages. For example I could say that on Tuesday night 80% of victims of injury at the emergency ward were males and then use that number in a press release indicating males are clearly the most injured gender in all the land. Only when an astute reporter started digging further, which few of them have the sense to do, would we get down to the fine details. Jaffe gets lots of taxpayer funding by throwing around numbers that may be out of context with peer reviewed studies. Bev Matthews, the feminist Minister for Women's issues, brags she has $208,000,000.00 in her budget to throw at these things. No Minister has any for abused men. See the followup letter by Jaffe below the first article with more of his stats.MJM
By CHIP MARTIN
Training on how to detect family violence is coming to the Ontario workplace.A $622,000 grant to a London centre, spread over two years, is intended to detect signs of domestic abuse and provide help for victims who are employees.
The grant from the Ontario government to the Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children in London will provide access to information as well as information on how to respond to signs of abuse for both employers and employees. It will devise a workplace training program intended to detect and deal with abuse.
The move comes as the Occupational Health and Safety Act is amended to require employers to take action to protect their staff.
"If the right people knew the right response we know we could have averted tragedy," Deb Matthews, minister of women's issues said yesterday, referring to the stabbing death of Lori Dupont by her doctor-boyfriend at a Windsor hospital three years ago.
"This investment will make a profound difference," said the North-London-Centre MPP.
The money will help the four-year-old Neighbours, Friends and Families program extend into the workplace. That awareness campaign is in 170 communities across Ontario.
The London centre will provide materials to employees and employers across the province.
Barb MacQuarrie, community director for the centre, said it's important workers and employers see the signs of domestic trouble and find a caring response to avert outbreaks. Violence on the homefront affects worker productivity, she noted.
MacQuarrie said persuading victims of abuse to open up can take some work, so one group targeted for information is hairstylists, because "women talk to their hairstylists," she said.
She said while some victims of violence are men, the evidence is it is a small number.
Peter Jaffe, academic director for the centre, said statistics show overwhelmingly women are the victims. In domestic homicides, for instance, 94% of the time men are the perpetrators. And 80% to 90% of spouses living in fear of their partner are women.
Jaffe said it's hard to reach men who are isolated and depressed and who need help.
"How do you get men to ask for help?" he asked, conceding barbers might have a role to play.
MacQuarrie said she expects the amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act will be enacted late this year.
Letter to Editor
UNLESS otherwise noted, these letters are to be considered unedited. The opinions expressed in the letters and comments are those of the writers and not of The London Free Press.POLICE
輎,000 grant to a London centre
How typical it is for Deb Matthews and Peter Jaffe to not mention the murder two years ago, of Dave Lucio, as was committed by Acting Inspector Kelly Johnson, when they were discussing this grant to help expose domestic violence. It was certainly typical of their behaviour in these situations; and it is shameful as well.
What Mr. Jaffe and Ms. Matthews neglected to mention was that the Murray Faulkner-ordered inquiry into the murder-suicide (link to the inquiry copied below) actually found that Kelly Johnson's murder of Dave Lucio was NOT an act of domestic violence. To quote from that Faulkner-ordered report:
"There was no evidence of domestic violence between David Lucio and Kelly Johnson."
How can Mr. Jaffe claim, then, to be appropriately disseminating the statistics of which gender commits acts of murder against their partner when it is clear that they are not even categorizing murders by females as acts of domestic violence? The short answer is that he can't. Well, it's clear that he can, because Mr. Jaffe has been misrepresenting domestic violence statistics for years, just as he did again in this instance. Since he chooses to misrepresent the facts, he should be exposed for doing so.
As tragic as Lori Dupont's murder was, so was Dave Lucio's. The fact that Deb Matthews and Peter Jaffe - given their positions of power - are unable or unwilling to consider both acts as being equally heinous should be gravely concerning to men and women alike.
http://www.police.london.ca/Newsroom/PDFs/luciojohnsonreport.pdf
POSTED BY: Brad Charlton, London
POSTED ON: August 12, 2009
Comments
| agree Good job Brad. Its pretty sad when all that ever gets told is about how men abuse women etc. Well there is two sides to the storey and only one side ever gets told. Its a sad society we live in when the men are always guilty. Not that long ago a women posted on this very topic. How she lied and had her boyfriend arrested. Guilty until proven innocient I guess. Very shamefull I will say. Be nice to live in a world when men and women are TRULY treated equal. POSTED BY: Don R. |
| Results What I'd like to see from the two of them and the rest that pilfer our Government for money, are RESULTS. They've been given millions and milions of dollars and yet Domestic Violence still climbs (according to them). You give me 1 million dollars and I'll show you how to set up a shelters to educate both men and women on Domestic Violence to reduce the numbers. Hey, here's another thought. What about making things Equal when it comes to a separation and or divorce. Equal as in, Equal Shared Parenting, then no one has a reason to get upset with the other. Please ask your local MP to support Bill C-422 for Equal Shared Parenting. POSTED BY: Robert Hebblethwaite |
| Is Jaffe a feminist? Jaffe quotes statistics that do not have attribution. Could you please tell us where he obtained them or does the reporter believe everything he hears from these folks. I have seen some of his and Mathews numbers before like 95% of domestic violence deaths are women. Many deaths of men are not classified as DV at the hands of their Intimate Partners. Just one of many is disclosed in the letter. One of the favourites of Mathews and Jaffe is to use a discredited coroners death review report based on a sample size of 11 which was fundamentally flawed. if that is how Jaffe is able to get all this tax payers money it deserves auditing. If only women are the targets in this study it is unconstitutional and someone should file a HRC against both Jaffe and Mathews. If Jaffe wants to find abused men he need not go far from London. I have contacts in the rest of the country who will step forward. DV is pretty much equal in Canada and initiation by the female at a 71% rate in one study by the CDC. Further to that recent studies shows female injuries will drop if they do not initiate. Males suffer serious injury in about 1/3 of cases reported. Here's the rub, men only report about 10-20% of the time. POSTED BY: Mike Murphy |
Letter to Editor
General
Letter of Brad Charlton on Domestic Homicide
In response to Brad Charlton's letter, I would never minimize any tragedy such as the Dave Lucio homicide.
What I think the Chief was saying was that there was no history of domestic violence between Johnson and Lucio that would have led someone to see a pattern of behavior and predict a potential homicide risk. A prior history of domestic violence is often a risk factor in cases of domestic homicide.
There are women who are violent and men who are abused. I do not condone domestic violence in any relationship.
What I indicated to the media at our August 10th press conference was that over 90% of the domestic homicides involves women as victims and men as perpetrators. The latest DV Death Review Committee report confirms this fact. Women are more likely to be killed, injured, live in fear of their partner, miss work or seek hospital attention for domestic violence. I hope that men who need help receive the support they deserve.
Comments
| Re: You Think? Obviuosly even you're not sure Mr. Jaffe. Considering the money you just recieved and knowing your close relationship with Chief Faulkner, I would much prefer you be damn sure before making statements of that nature. The fact that Mr. Charlton's facts are valid and you with you not being sure, then in my opinion, that makes Mr. Charlton more credible than you! POSTED BY: Robert Hebblethwaite |
| P.Jaffe Sir; if what you say is a sincere acknowledgment that women are also perpetrators of dv and men are also victims - then please explain why you are so often quoted as portraying men as the perpetrators and women as the victims. Have you read the Statscan report 2005??? Does it have anything to do with your funding from women's groups??? POSTED BY: barry j massing |
| Jaffes reference to 90% Mr. Jaffe: Perhaps you could cite the total number of deaths reviewed to get an idea of the sample size, where they were reviewed, by whom, and the community - was it for the City of London, Toronto, the Hamlet of Kirkfield or Lindsay. The top ten deaths by women in Canada don't show DV as a cause and I suggest it is a tiny fraction of total deaths. Lets get some perspective. Are all deaths considered or just police reported homicides. Are child and males deaths included in these reviews? From Barbara Kay: "In Canada, in 2006, out of 605 murders, 78 were spousal homicides - a trifling figure in a country of 35 million people. The total for the women - 56 - is 6 fewer than in 2005, and represents the fifth consecutive annual decline in numbers of women killed." Your 90% statistic does sound impressive but I often wonder how scientific it is based on the above numbers. Did you know male spousal homicides were increasing in 2006? I'm certain you are aware of the StatsCan Social Survey reports of 2004 showing men as being victimized in 6% of cases and women in 7% yet MPP Matthews has 走,000,000.00 in her budget for women's issues and none for men. Men are seriously injured in at least 1/3 of reported cases. Mine were never reported but I could have been killed. After you've been attacked with 4.5 foot rake handles and 10 lb. jugs of water bounced off your head one takes your numbers with a great deal of cynicism. If you are intentionally excluding men from this tax supported funding I would advise an abused London male to file a human rights complaint. The nonesense that men aren't victim of DV has to stop. Domestic Violence is a serious problem but it is never going to be resolved using your paradigm. It is a family problem and needs a broader perspective. The Duluth wheel is junk science developed with a sample size of 11 mostly female victims. POSTED BY: Mike Murphy |
| Actions speak louder than words Mr. Jaffe, I respect your willingness to reply to my Letter to the Editor. Thank you for expressing your feelings towards Dave Lucio. I am hoping that it provides some solace for Dave Lucio's parents, who have expressed concern about Murray Faulkner's treatment of the matter. Also, I fear that your actions suggest that you are not nearly as understanding of violence against men, Mr. Jaffe; and I suggest that your bias comes at the expense of children. I'll give you an example of what I am referring to: In 2007, London hosted the "Third International Conference on Children Exposed to Domestic Violence". When describing the dozens of workshops that were held over those three days in May, not one mention was made about children who witnessed their fathers being exposed to Domestic Violence, although one group - and only one - did seem to feel it appropriate to at least state "parents" when mentioning potential victims of Domestic Violence. You are now Director Emeritus of the Centre for Children & Families in the Justice System - having been the Director for many, many years - and it was that agency that hosted that conference. When describing what work your centre does, the following is written in the Program for that conference: "The Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System (formerly called the London Family Court Clinic) is known around the world for our innovative approach to understanding children exposed to domestic violence, supporting their mothers, and creating resources for service deliverers. So, I ask you, Mr. Jaffe, since you stated that you hoped that men get the help they need: What have YOU done to help ensure that men get the help that they deserve? Further, what have YOU done to protect the children who are exposed to not only violence against their fathers, but also about violence that their mother inflicts on the children themselves? POSTED BY: Brad Charlton |
| Women shelters save mens' lives In reference to Peter Jaffe's response. Yes, more women die in domestic homicides than men are killed by women. Studies have demonstrated that women's shelters save men's live since the women have a choice of killing the man or going to the shelter to escape abuse. I propose the opposite is also true; men's shelters will save wIn reference to Peter Jaffe's response. Yes, more women die in domestic homicides than men are killed by women. Studies have demonstrated that women's shelters save men's live since the women have a choice of killing the man or going to the shelter to escape abuse. I propose the opposite is also true; men's shelters will save women;'s lives since the man will have a choice between killing his spouse or going to the shelter to cool off. So anyone who wants to reduce violence against women and reduce female spousal deaths will support the concept of providing men with an escape to the men;s shelter. Earlomen;'s lives since the man will have a choice between killing his spouse or going to the shelter to cool off. So anyone who wants to reduce violence against women and reduce female spousal deaths will support the concept of providing men with an escape to the men;s shelter. POSTED BY: Earl Silverman |
| Jaffes reference to 90% Mr. Jaffe: Perhaps you could cite the total number of deaths reviewed to get an idea of the sample size, where they were reviewed, by whom, and the community - was it for the City of London, Toronto, the Hamlet of Kirkfield or Lindsay. The top ten deaths by women in Canada don't show DV as a cause and I suggest it is a tiny fraction of total deaths. Lets get some perspective. Are all deaths considered or just police reported homicides. Are child and males deaths included in these reviews? From Barbara Kay: "In Canada, in 2006, out of 605 murders, 78 were spousal homicides - a trifling figure in a country of 35 million people. The total for the women - 56 - is 6 fewer than in 2005, and represents the fifth consecutive annual decline in numbers of women killed." Your 90% statistic does sound impressive but I often wonder how scientific it is based on the above numbers. Did you know male spousal homicides were increasing in 2006? I'm certain you are aware of the StatsCan Social Survey reports of 2004 showing men as being victimized in 6% of cases and women in 7% yet MPP Matthews has 走,000,000.00 in her budget for women's issues and none for men. Men are seriously injured in at least 1/3 of reported cases. Mine were never reported but I could have been killed. After you've been attacked with 4.5 foot rake handles and 10 lb. jugs of water bounced off your head one takes your numbers with a great deal of cynicism. If you are intentionally excluding men from this tax supported funding I would advise an abused London male to file a human rights complaint. The nonesense that men aren't victim of DV has to stop. Domestic Violence is a serious problem but it is never going to be resolved using your paradigm. It is a family problem and needs a broader perspective. The Duluth wheel is junk science developed with a sample size of 11 mostly female victims. POSTED BY: Mike Murphy |
| Robert Rob, learn how to spell to gain more credibility. It's "obviously", NOT "obviuosly" and "received" NOT "recieved". "I" before "E" except after "C". Like I have said before Rob get a job, or in this case, go back to school. POSTED BY: Ken |
| Peter Jaffe vs. Don Dutton I think Peter Jaffe should respond to Don Dutton's professional critisizm. Re: Dutton 2009 - Domestic Abuse Assessment in child custody disputes "provide one-sided analyses of domestic violence based on self-selected and non-representavie samples" "severe physical child abuse is more likely to be perpetrated by mothers than fathers." "misleading focus of the female-victim orientation of the domestic-violence paradigm." "Subjective "engaging in discussion" with an evaluator, who is already primed to disbelieve the male respondent, is the very type of situation that forensic assessment has sought to eliminate." "more extensive analyses of violence also dispute the claim that women are substantially more injured or that male violence is more severe or chronic." "This pattern throughout the literature linking domestic violence and custody assessment is a misleading mindset to provide to evaluators who must enter into a custody evaluation from a neutral perspective and without preconceptions. The problem with both writers is their focus on males as batterers. This becomes problematic in a custody assessment where a mindset or paradigm drawn from working exclusively with battered women victims (Jaffe et al., 2003) or male perpetrators (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002) is now applied to a broader population where, despite Jaffe's attempts to dismiss it, female abuse is a reality and either can be detrimental to the best interests oif the child.: POSTED BY: Denis Pakkala |
| Send Me Back! Ken, First things first. I wouldn't dignify your question(s) with an answer, simply because you are hiding behind a Pseudo, which tells me that you're not to confident with your responses. Second of all, if you would like to be the one to send me back to school, then get a back-bone and show your face, as I would love for you to teach me. Just let me know when and where school starts and I'll be there with bells on! POSTED BY: Robert Hebblethwaite |
| justice Murray... errrr.... I mean, "Ken".... do you have anything of value to contribute to these debates/discussions or not? It surprises me that the LFP continues to print your comments, since you continue to violate the rules for having a Letter to the Editor to be printed. Mr. Jaffe, I would genuinely appreciate a response as to what it is that you are doing to help men - and their children - who are abused by their female partners. The Centre for Children & Families in the Justice System's motto seems to make it very clear, namely that you and your agencies ONLY attend to women who are abused. POSTED BY: Brad Charlton |
| Ken Apathetic Ken is worried about Rob`s spelling. I bet Ken does not care about much but himself and only gets proactive when it effects him or his selfish interests.Very much a "Not until its in my back yard do I give!@$%" complacent mentality. POSTED BY: J.P. |
| Womens Shelters Ignore Female Perpetrators There has been so much credible research in the past 10 years that has refuted Jaffes lifes work of promoting domestic violence as primarily male agressor and female perpetrator. Womens shelters promote this false ideology and do not deal with reciprocal partner violence and women's violence against men. As long as we as a society continue to ignore womens violence against men, the cycle of family violence will continue to be taught to children. The choice is clear: Either we continue to disseminate misleading and false information that conforms to a self-serving ideological agenda. Or we move forward in our shared goal to help families become violence free. POSTED BY: Denis Pakkala |
| Police Statistics on Domestic Violence It is troubling that we are relying on the Police to define what is and isn't domestic homicide. The police are not professionals in this area of research and there have been a number of cases recently, where domestic violence was certainly a factor, but it was not registered by the Police. London Police Service Inspector, Kelly Johnson, shot and killed retired LPS Superintendent David Lucio. They were in a close relationship which resulting in his death, but officially NOT domestic homicide. Adam Cunningham was viciously slashed by his wife Ellie Cunningham and died in April 2009 in Surrey B.C. as a result of his injuries, but officially NOT domestic homicide. You can see how the Police Statistics are easily skewed by the arbitrary nature of labelling domestic homicide. Melvin Cristison was stabbed to death by his girlfriend Annalee Auckland in June 2009 in Prince Rupert B.C. but officially NOT domestic homicide. 4 women were killed by their family in an "honour killing" in Kington, On. in July 2009, officially domestic homicide. POSTED BY: Denis Pakkala |
| Domestic Homicide Domestic homicide is such a rare occurance, yet when police respond to domestic violence calls they act with extreme prejudice against men, as if homicide is imminent. Since domestic violence is almost gender neutral and the majority of domestic violence is reciprocal and not of an extreme pathological nature, wouldn't it be a better idea to approach domestic violence without gender bias and promote healthy families? Keep in mind, the vast majority of domestic violence cases are for verbal disagreements or minor assault, which is often reciprocal. Often the responding officer cannot ascertain the truth, yet arrests the man anyway. POSTED BY: Denis Pakkala |
| Police Officer Perceptions Police Officer Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence (POPIPV): An Analysis of Observational Data The POPIPV documents that almost two of every three (62%) of law enforcement IPV interventions are for "verbal arguments." And one of every five (20.4%) are for incidents where it is difficult to determine who is the offender and who is the victim. Hence, the vast majority (82.4%) of IPV interventions can be problematic for responding officers. Most criminal justice data documents that in serious incidents females do suffer from more injurious and fatal violence than males. However, as the POPIPV documents most IPV incidents are minor or there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate who initiated the assaultive behavior. Contemporary unprecedented IPV training curriculums establish a bias found nowhere else in the criminal justice system. IPV trainers simply refer to females as victims and males as offenders It is difficult to understand how or why the officers did not make a single arrest of a female offender when a recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention documents that women are the perpetrators in more than 70% of nonreciprocal IPV incidents. http://www.californiamenscenters.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/090126-law-enforcement-and-ipv.pdf POSTED BY: Denis Pakkala |
| men Gee, I hope my spellin' passes mustard !!! Idealogue feminists have defined domestic violence as solely of women's concern; that it's a gendered issue. Mr. Jaffe sees it that way too. This is the very reason most men will not support their work, nor their blinkered views. Too bad. Seems we all lose. Present anti-DV programmes are a great failure, having failed to ellicit little more than platitudes from most men, having failed to help all abused husbands, having failed to recognize even the possibility of wives being abusive, never mind having failed to deal with mothers abusing their offspring. Pity the violence prone teenage girl in a relationship who has nowhere to turn when her society is unwilling to validate her and what she is fully capable of. What a failure and disservice to those females! Mr. Jaffe has work to do to redeem himself. POSTED BY: thomas |
| Ken . . . if that's your real name Ken, Ken, Ken. Here you go again posting anonymously for the sole purpose of lobbing ad-hominem attacks. In what manner does that contribute to intelligent debate? Leave aside the fact that you already have no credibility since you persist in posting in a manner that does not identify you, this inclination of yours to only post to attack others without providing any intelligent commentary is beyond annoying. On the other hand, the many thoughtful people who have commented in response to Mr. Jaffe are to be applauded for responding to him with facts and figures. John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." Of course, Mr. Jaffe and others know another truth, correctly identified by Mark Twain, "Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable." I hope, Mr. Jaffe, that you will begin listening to the voices of reason who ask only that you apply some objectivity in the important work that you do. That is assuming of course, that your motives are pure. If you really mean to see an end to domestic violence, then listen to Erin Pizzey, the original founder of the shelter movement in the U.K, who once said of DV that, "the basis of the problem is a human one; violence occurs in both men and women." She understood that violence in the home was largely the result of cyclical and generational exposure to violence, and that whether one was the abused or the abuser, the violence would continue until everyone, regardless of gender, understood their own behaviour. Help break the cycle Mr. Jaffe, and help stop the damnable lies spread through the use of pliable statistics. POSTED BY: Mary Lou Ambrogio |
| Don Duttons Critisizm of Jaffe's Gender Bias In a recent issue of Journal of Child Custody, Michael Johnson and I engaged in a debate regarding the use of what I call the AA"gender paradigmAA" (Dutton and Nicholls 2005)in custody disputes. The gender paradigm, as I tried to point out, is the collective set of beliefs in the domestic violence field, that intimate partner violence is exclusively or predominantly male perpetrated, when the research data say otherwise. I criticised two books (Bancroft and Silverman 2002; Jaffe, Lemon et al. 2003)and several research papers connecting domestic violence to custody assessments for promoting this view. I will not restate those arguments here. The interested reader can find them, and JohnsonAA's response to them in Journal of Child Custody, 2005, volume 2(4). In his AA"brief replyAA" Michael Johnson says he AA"never deniedAA" that women can be intimate terrorists. I suppose technically thatAA's true. What he did do though was, as I said in my response to him (Dutton 2005) was to create two categories in the literature; AA"patriarchal terrorismAA" and AA"common couple violenceAA" that deflected attention from female initiated intimate partner violence( IPV). Although Johnson claims to have revised this view in later papers of his, I was responding to his rebuttal in the above volume, in which he re-asserts that AA"intimate terrorism (also known as domestic violence, etc) is, indeed, primarily male perpetratedAA". I have reviewed evidence that shows this view is no longer supported by recent research (Dutton 2005; Dutton 2006) and hence can be especially misleading as a AA"mindsetAA" for custody assessments. I cannot see how Johnson has anywhere made it clear that by AA"intimate terrorismAA" he intends the assessor to apply this term to both men and women, especially given his statement above. He still argues in his AA"brief replyAA" that intimate terrorism is AA"largely male perpetrated and related to gender attitudesAA". I will only briefly re-assert that the evidence shows IPV is perpetrated more by women (Archer 2000) including the severe form (Stets and Straus 1992). JohnsonAA's inability or unwillingness to comprehend these data is a pure example of the belief perseverance I have already described (Dutton and Nicholls 2005). Apart from IPV directed to a partner, feminist theory also ignores violence by women directed at children, probably because such violence falls outside the political view of being a response to an oppressor male. However, violence and abuse toward children is of central importance to custody assessors, more so than the varieties of IPV described by Johnson. In that respect, custody assessors should be aware of the largest study of child abuse and neglect that, to my knowledge, has ever been conducted. This is a study of 135, 573 child maltreatment investigations conducted by Health Canada and Published by the National Clearing House on Family Violence (Trocme and al. 2001). The study designates the abuse type as physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, emotional maltreatment and AA"multiple categoriesAA". The investigations are further divided into substantiated, suspected and unsubstantiated categories. Substantiation rates do not, in general, vary by gender of perpetrator and run from 52 to 58%. Biological mothers (as compared to biological fathers) are the more likely substantiated perpetrator of physical abuse (47 vs. 42%), neglect (86% vs. 33%), emotional maltreatment (61% vs. 55%) and multiple categories (66% vs. 36%). The biological father is the most likely perpetrator of sexual abuse (15% vs. 5%). For physical abuse the substantiation rate was 6% higher for fathers, bringing the total perpetration rates to equality ( Table 4, page 49). These data, based on a huge nationally representative sample, tell a very different picture than that presented by Jaffe et al, Bancroft et al, or Johnson, all of whom over rely on shelter samples to draw erroneous conclusions about risk to children. Johnson concludes by saying AA"assume that all violence is intimate terrorism (which is AA"largely male perpetrated and related to gender attitudesAA") until proven otherwiseAA". Compare this to the American Psychological Association Guidelines for forensic evaluation summarised in Weissman and DeBow (2003). The forensic evaluation must begin with a AA"cognitive set and evaluative attitudeAA" of the assessor that is AA"neutral, objective and detachedAA" (p. 39). Jaffe et al, Bancroft et al and Johnson make adherence to this principle impossible. POSTED BY: Denis Pakkala |
No comments:
Post a Comment