Tim Harris, the executive director of Real Change, writes about Tim Burgess’s plan to pursue aggressive panhandlers:

Councilmember Tim Burgess will soon introduce legislation to the Seattle City Council to restrict panhandling in Seattle. He says his proposal simply sets a few minimal standards of behavior in the interest of public safety. Not true. Tim Burgess is sucking up to money, pandering to fear, and punishing the poor.

I moved to Belltown just as that neighborhood began to wrestle with aggressive panhandling. Million-dollar condos abound, but so do social-service organizations for the poor. If one thing is true about pandhandling, it is that your perspective will likely decide your opinion on the issue. Hassled by a panhandler outside your car? You’re probably not very sympathetic. This quote from Harris is indicative of that:

Recently on KUOW, Tim Burgess described a frightening encounter with a freeway on-ramp panhandler who banged on his car window that very morning in pursuit of a handout. Despite my ample experience with on-ramp panhandling, I’ve never had this happen, and wonder how many of us have.

We can all agree that people on the street who strong-arm tourists for spare change are criminals. What can be harder to face is the fact that panhandling just flat makes people uncomfortable, including Harris:

Even I, sitting in my car awaiting the on-ramp timing light, will sometimes avoid the gaze of the sign-holding needy. To be made fidgety, however, is different than being threatened. The only threat here is to the well-padded comfort zone of affluent Seattle.

Being confronted by poverty on the street is unpleasant, but it is nothing compared to the underlying reality faced by those on the street. Are laws further penalizing aggressive panhandling a reasonable response to a legitimate concern? Or are we avoiding the bigger issue?

I used to walk a lot through my old neighborhood, past the crack dealers on 2nd Avenue and Bell Street, past the offices of Real Change and DSHS. I would see people begging for change, some with a sign and a cup, some who were a bit pushy. But only once or twice in five years did I ever feel threatened. Instead of passing laws grouping the benign beggars in with the real thugs, maybe city hall should be honest. Let’s admit that we’re not doing much for the folks on the street. Maybe then we can start having a real conversation about the things that make us uncomfortable.

85 replies on “Aggressive Panhandling”

  1. I am on the fence on this one. There is a clear difference between aggressive behavior that is nearly criminal and simply asking for a hand out. Burgess is out of touch but so are those who think that panhandlers can behave how ever they want to simply because of their status.

    So much for the magical 10 year plan to end homelessness in Seattle

  3. I spent eight years in Seattle and was never aggressively panhandled; but I still vividly recall the guy in the Chicago El station who got in my face, and my several other friends’ faces, demanding to know what college we went to (we were near DePaul) – basically accusing us of being spoiled brat students who had money to spare. (Not true – we were all working near minimum wage jobs in retail.) This was in 1995. THAT is aggressive panhandling.

  4. As a tax payer and a contributing member of society I should be able to walk down the street in peace. I am not sympathetic to panhandlers, especially the scumbag street kids who think they are living a romantic lifestyle. Well at least up until the point they have to suck dick for their next hit.

    I support Burgess 100%.

  5. Are laws further penalizing aggressive panhandling a reasonable response to a legitimate concern?

    Ab so fucking lutlely

    Burgess is spot on correct.

    Cato @1 that behavior isn’t near criminal. It flat out is. As a commuter, how do I know whether the guy who approaches my stopped vehicle at an off ramp is merely going to pound on my window demanding change, or instead, try to break my window, or force open my door in an attempt to car jack me? California has an epidemic of aggressive forced entry car jackings, and many have led to the deaths of innocent motorists.

    As a law abiding citizen, at what point can I pull a gun on these people to protect my safety? Am I allowed to err on the side of caution and pull my gun if they simply approach? I know I won’t have time to pull a gun on them if I delay and wait for them to jump into my car… better be safe than sorry and have it at the ready as they approach…

    Right?

    Something to consider…

  7. Man, RC, you just showed what a paranoid flat out pussy you are. Seriously? You want to pull a gun on someone knocking on your window? Seriously?

    You know how some people make the case that guns ELEVATE tensions in confrontations like this? This is the proof.

  8. Reality Check: You probably should just stay in your house altogether, to avoid the drove of dangers that await you just past your door. But then again, what’s that tired old statistic about 99.9999999% of fatal accidents happening in the home? We’re just not safe anywhere, not no where: what’s a guy to do who only want to live in fear nowadays?

  9. Used to be that you couldn’t swing a cat in the U district without hitting a surly, panhandling teen–usually sporting about $1,000 worth of doc martens, tattoos and piercings. I used to beg shopowners to turn a hose on them; they made my walk to and from work a chore every day with their aggressive begging. If you’re that poor that you need a handout, surely you don’t have the scratch to buy a $120 pair of boots.

  10. Far from it Matty

    Paranoid? Not at all. I am asking a hypothetical question. At what point are my rights to protecting my self and property violated? Do I need to wait for a violation to occur? Do I need to anticipate it escalating?

    As a second hypothetical question… how am I supposed to differentiate from someone trying to bum a dollar from me and someone who is about to steal my car? How do you do it? Do you just wait until you are lying bloody on the street after getting ripped out of your vehicle? Are you allowed to indicate your desire to not have them come within 10 feet of your vehicle if you feel threatened? Who gets to decide whether I have the right to proactively get ready for a confrontation they didn’t choose to be in?

    Please answer me that genius.

  13. I lived in New York City in the mid 90s and for my first year or so every time I rode the subway at least one panhandler would come walking through asking for change. They tended to not be aggressive but it turned out that they were breaking a NYC law on not panhandling to captive audiences (people in line, people on a bus, etc.). When Rudy Giuliani first become major, one of his first moves was to enforce the existing panhandling laws and almost overnight all subway panhandlers were gone, as were squeegee panhandlers who would clean your windshield unasked at a traffic light and then hit you up for change. The city almost overnight became a nicer place to live in and exist. Prior to change I had thought I was immune to any ill effects of life with panhandlers and I held all the normal very liberal views on the issue, but I did not know how much better daily life – just getting back and forth to work – could be without constantly being hit up for money. This one move made Giuliani very popular, by the way.

  14. Are we sure this “panhandler” wasn’t someone who objected to his car being in the middle of a crosswalk, and hadn’t had time to wear a suit and tie like him?

    Pics or it didn’t happen.

  16. @ 10 – do you drive with your car unlocked? Start locking it. Keep your window rolled up – you have climate control, right? Worried that someone will attack you? How often does that happen in crowded places in the daytime? Try not walking around by yourself at night in dangerous areas.

    Common sense precautions render your hypothetical questions moot. You have no right to a 10 foot buffer around you or your car in public, and you’re a damn fool if you want to risk blood over your car. You have insurance, right? Don’t leave irreplaceable valuables in it.

    Questions answered, and your paranoia is still on display.

  18. I find it ironic that republicans are typically very aggressive against panhandling (e.g., Giuliani in NYC), yet their primary philosophy is that people should essentially make money by begging for it. They’re against social services and “hand-outs,” but they’re all for charities, which is really just people begging for hand-outs. It’s a big contradiction, but with the GOP, what else is new?

  19. Let’s admit that we’re not doing much for the folks on the street.

    I’m really, really sick of this. Are we doing *enough*? Obviously not. Will we ever do *enough*? Probably not. But we still do a whole hell of a fucking lot. Picking up the pieces of broken lives is expensive and very frequently doesn’t work. We (as in city government and non-profits) still spend a lot of money every year trying.

    One reason (among many) I stopped giving to panhandlers is that they’re simply not going to starve to death. What kills chronically homeless people is usually the cumulative effects of their predicament, and one dollar ain’t going to shit about that.

  23. I don’ think being anti panhandling makes you conservative.

    Also, I do truly feel for the mentally ill homeless. They are victims of the system, and they need to be taken care of cause the cannot do it themselves. The rest of the homeless? Use the services provided by the city and get out of my face.

    And the addicts can be set on fire for all I care.

  25. I love this post, and am so glad we finally have a thoughtful, clever Will on Slog.

    Asskissing aside, the (legitimately unenforced) panhandling laws we now have can’t be made effective by adding additional (to-be-legitimately-unenforced) provisions.

    Burgess knows this. He knows we have jails already full to bursting with people whose chief offense is being mentally ill, advancedly alcoholic, cold and wet, or just weed-dealing. Overtaxed cops are forced to triage whom to release, cite or haul in among these “quality-of-life” offenders who, if they go to jail, emerge more likely to reoffend thanks to what happens there.

    Because of absurdly unnecessary overcrowding with just these types of offenders already, budget-strapped prosecutors and judges wind up cutting most new cases loose. The burden on the public purse is tremendous for what’s little more than a sop to our delicate sensibilities.

    Burgess is knowingly pandering to solidify his law-and-order constituency and help remove Licata. He’ll ride roughshod over whichever yutz wins the mayoralty. He wants Jessie for his loyal ally.

    Legalize pot, tax it locally, and use part of the income to re-fund the (demonstrably cheaper than jailing) mental health, cheap housing, and alcoholism/addiction services lost in recent decades.

    Problem not solved overnight, obvs., but it could prevent the likes of Burgess and Israel from easily advancing their careers Giuliani style.

  26. Shouldn’t any discussion of panhandling bring up the Seattle dipshits that give them money? Why are the panhandlers out there anyway? Perhaps because it pays.

    That said I think the ‘aggressive panhandling’ problem seems really overblown to me. Are people with a very low tolerance threshold deliberately confusing annoying with aggressive? I guess I can see where women and older people might provide more of a target than young men or might have a lower threshold for defining aggressive behaviour. But in my experience panhandlers in Seattle are rarely if ever aggressive (although plenty annoying). Seems kind of like existing laws are more than adequate for addressing aggressive behaviour.

  27. Typical @16 I expected nothing less than a complete dodging of my question.

    A very pussy typical liberal answer. Don’t anticipate being assaulted. Just bitch and moan after the fact. Count on the police to defend you, and that laws on the books will keep you safe and sound in your car.

    Sorry Matty… your answer is completely pathetic. You failed to answer my question honestly.

    I’ll ask it again. How do you anticipate a crime that might be about to occur? Do you simply lock your car door and hope they won’t smash your window? Does a motorist have a right to not be approached while in a confined limited defensible space? Why do I have to tolerate someone approaching my vehicle when I want nothing to do with the situation?

    Touchy feely aside, just tell me how a bum has a greater right to approach my vehicle and squeegee it or knock on the glass of my property, compared with me flashing a gun to indicate I have a way to defend myself if they foolishly escalate the situation? Do I have a right to have a gun at the ready in case the worst case scenario happens? Do I?

    You may not like my response, but do I have a right to do that? IS that right a greater right to defend my property against unwanted intrusion, more protected than a bum’s right to approach me in a confined situation?

    Come on Matty I know you can do it! I have faith!

  28. @27,

    Seattle panhandlers are pussies compared to panhandlers in San Francisco. Those mofos will try to trip you if you don’t give them money.

    And, to my knowledge, San Francisco spends more on services for the homeless. It’s not just lack of services that’s the problem, as Mr. Kelley-Kamp implies. It’s also a different culture of panhandling, which is the result of San Franciscans’ historic permissiveness of shitty behavior.

  29. @27 Do I have a right to not be “annoyed” (let’s swap that cute little term with “approached in a confined situation”)?

    It is more than annoying. It is a special situation that is highly defenseless. Hence many jurisdictions enacting legislation to give special protected status to innocent citizens who want no part of being approached or “annoyoed”.

    Panhandlers need to be stopped in all cases. Noone has a right in this day and age of social services, to harass anyone for money. And I use harass very loosely. including all requests for money in public, by any stranger for any reason. Maybe if we just enacted a complete ban on all requests for money in the public space, we’d completely end this BS.

    Enough is enough. Let’s stop dancing around the obvious solutions, and quit masking the problem with touchy feely excuses and terms.

  30. I support charities and I fully support public help for people who have fallen through the cracks. There needs to be a minimum in this country through which no one should have to pass on their way to down-and-out. Even those who chose their own demise via booze or heroin (or whatever) need our help – because a life of hopelessness is worse than death. Worse for them. Worse for us.

    BUT…people begging on the streets cheapens and demoralizes life in a city. Panhandlers have ruined San Francisco. SF has lost a lot of tourist revenue, and conventions no longer want to book there because of its unpleasant, aggressive panhandlers. Know what else? It coarsens people to have to endure that day in and day out. I don’t want to live in a place where you simply step over people lying in the gutter because you’ve become accustomed to it. Nor do I want to ignore it by driving by it in my BMW (which people will start doing if it is allowed to continue).

    I think I heard somewhere recently that a huge amount of the homeless are women and children. Of course, I’ve seen a few women panhandling, but I wonder why we haven’t seen their numbers represented among the spare changers? Maybe its easier – if receiving social services is ever easier – for women and children to receive services than it is for single men.

    Lastly, there have been points in my life in which I’ve been very poor, even homeless. But thank goodness I never had to spare change. That seems to me the ultimate humiliation. I wonder what happens to someone who passes that barrier that one must pass in order to beg for existence (or for cigarettes, for booze, or for some sort of dope). What else dies inside when that happens.

  31. I feel bad for the homeless, but I walk 10 blocks to work and I’m usually hit upon 3 or 4 times on that walk. Yesterday, a panhandler chased me down the sidewalk after I said no to him 3 times. This is unacceptable.

  32. @27 totally. If it didn’t make money, people wouldn’t do it.

    I really don’t see how layering a new law that won’t be enforced, on top of an old law that isn’t enforced, will stop “aggressive panhandling” OR do what I think it is people really want, which is to make panhandling disappear forever.

    Publicola did a little thing on the Downtown Seattle Association survey of panhandlers, based on that it sounds like there are maybe 30 or so known, chronic panhandlers in the downtown area. It’s probably like 100 if we look at the whole city (shot in the dark guess). This seems like a small enough problem that if we wanted to *actually do something about it,* we could, right?

    The city of Toronto ran a pilot project a bit ago where community workers basically contacted every panhandler in the city and set them up with what they needed, whether it was housing, rehab, job training, or whatever. More info here: http://www.toronto.ca/housing/pilot.htm

    It’s an interesting program. Might work better than pretending we’re going to arrest people and then not actually doing it.

  33. @30 just trying to clarify here: apparently you would like legislation that would permit you to open fire on anyone who ‘approaches’ you with the intent to panhandle? Seems entirely reasonable but there is that small problem as to how to ascertain intent. Can we settle on shabby clothing being sufficient to earn a couple of rounds? Dark skin? Or may it would have to be shabby clothing combined with dark skin?

  34. @34 Not at all. I have no right to “open fire” on anyone who “approaches” my vehicle.

    You had your answer in my reply @28 when I said “compared with me flashing a gun to indicate I have a way to defend myself if they foolishly escalate the situation? Do I have a right to have a gun at the ready in case the worst case scenario happens? Do I?”

    So to clarify for you read above. I asked if I had a right to have my gun visible and at the ready. Because there is no way I would have time to go dig it out if I was suddenly attacked, and caught surprised.

    Ascertaining intent is the exact question I was trying to ask Matty from Denver. How DO you ascertain intent? This is part of the exact logic used by jurisdictions giving special rights to the area around a motorists vehicle when occupied and stopped in traffic. Motorists are very vulnerable.

    Your attempts at being snarky Rhizome fail miserably. You need to try painting me as radical in some fashion to attempt discrediting me. However the questions posed early stand.

    Nice attempt. Poor execution though. I’ll pose the very same questions from @28 to you Rhizome. Answer them. I dare you. Don’t dance and weave and try casting more aspersions.

    Are you a pussy liberal too?

  35. Wow, RC, belittling liberals! Moderates who aren’t fringy hard right jerkoffs do that all the time!

    Hmmm… so knocking over your strawmen = “avoiding the question?” That’s some fantasy world you live in. Let me make it clear – you’re not going to be the victim of a crime if you take precautions against it. Therefore you never encounter a situation where you’re going to be a victim of a crime. I know – I’ve lived 39 years without ever being victimized except in situations where I begged it. (Once walking by the rather obvious gang near my high school, another when some jerk on the street mouthed off to me and I mouthed off back rather than just walking on. Both resulted in minor assault, but could have ended up with someone dead if I had a gun.) So spare me your unrealistic hypotheticals, okay? I know how to recognize danger, and if you keep your eyes open when you’re out and about you will to.

    As to your “rights…” If you can find me where in either the US or Washington constitutions the right not to deal with people in public, then no, you don’t have a right not to have someone knock on your window. You don’t have the right to pull a gun on them if they do, and you’re a paranoid fuck if you feel like you have to if that’s all that they’re doing. BTW, has anyone EVER knocked on your window like that? It never happened to me in eight years of living and working in downtown Seattle.

    It’s telling that you want to ban something that qualifies as free assembly under the First Amendment and claim that the homeless don’t have a right to it. Um, no. If they sparechange you, either lie and say you don’t have any, or just say no. I thought you conservatives always hated unneccesary laws…

  36. I’m in panhandler-friendly San Fran and it is with sorrow that I say: Screw ’em. Burgess has the right idea. Look, I am very firmly in favor of more social services, more funding for soup kitchens and homeless shelters and drug treatment centers, and less reliance on the cops/courts to handle every victim of misfortune in our society. But I’m also in favor of being able to get to work without being harassed by _every other fucking person_ I see on the way.

    If they put together a legislative package that addresses both, then advocates have no legitimate reason to complain as far as I’m concerned. Unfortunately, the former involves the collection and use of more tax revenue, which apparently causes even liberal politicians in liberal burgs to chicken out.

  37. I absolutely agree that we should have the right to arrest/ban/shoot people for making us uncomfortable. Then I will finally have recourse against blue-rinse women wafting floral perfumes. And folks talking loudly on their cell phones while I’m trapped in line. And compulsive pen-twiddlers…

  39. @36

    Let me make it clear – you’re not going to be the victim of a crime if you take precautions against it.

    That’s some statement. So basically, anyone who is a victim of a crime was asking for it — or at the very least guilty of not taking precautions?

  40. @ 40 – Perhaps I overstated. Let me rephrase – your chances of being a victim of a crime are a lot lower when you take precautions than when you don’t. Are you perfectly safe? Of course not. Will the hypotheticals being posed by RC happen to you in spite of these precautions? Maybe, but the odds against it are astronomical.

  41. I agree with a lot of what #37 says, but…(the “but” part not directed at you, 37)

    The tone of this argument is really naive. Panhandlers are all different people, each with their deal, and their own hustle. It may be annoying, but we’ve all got the same rights. Deal with situations and individuals accordingly. Making laws against “them” is a weird, and dehumanizing way to look at it.

    If the mayor wants to cops want to start enforcing “quality of life” crimes to drive them out, then fess up to it, and ditch this we’re-gonna-annoy-you-and-maybe-you’ll-clean-up-your-act bullshit. If Burgess is just fishing for popularity— it’ll probably work—but he’s wasting everyone’s time and money, except his own. Plus, he sounds like a total pussy.

    #36 – Glad you’ve managed to stay safe, but unfortunate shit really does happen for no reason, no matter how streetwise you think you are.

  42. Matt from Denver, ignore my last paragraph, you addressed that while I was typing; in the context of arguing with RC, I don’t know why I even bothered to make light of it.

  44. David @13 – I don’t agree that defending panhandling constitutes “the normal very liberal views on the issue” — in fact, that many people think that the do-nothing approach is liberal shows how conservative liberals have gotten. A liberal approach would be to increase training and resources for mental health and substance abuse outreach and treatment programs, more spending on social services, job training, and sustained programs for the homeless. Universal healthcare, rent control, affordable housing. Those are liberal ideas. Just shrugging and saying, “I’ve never felt threatened” or “it doesn’t bother me” is not a liberal response, it’s an apathetic one that denies that the real hardship the homeless and panhandlers face can’t be addressed or alleviated by panhandling.

  45. Speaking as a non-Seattle-resident: What is the current law? Nobody’s actually mentioned it.

    And… I tend to think of myself as a very socioeconomically liberal, compassionate person. I’m also a woman in her 20s who enjoys traveling alone. This is from the original linked article:

    “The Burgess proposal bans panhandling near ATMs and cars, at street intersections and freeway onramps and anytime between the hours of dusk and dawn.”

    That… sounds like common sense to me. Of course you don’t want people panhandling near ATMs or approaching cars or pedestrians after dark. That’s reasonable. Those rules that encourage safety for both parties–both the person getting hit up for money and the panhandler who is hoping not to get maced or punched or shot or the cops called on them.

    I get that there is a whole different side to the story regarding the accessibility and success of services, but when you boil the interaction down to one person going about their day and a second person panhandling… what exactly is the problem with these safety measures?

    (Also: the Atlanta homeless that I encounter are much less aggressive that their Seattle counterparts. However, they also tend to be older and worse-off-looking than their Seattle counterparts. I am wholly unqualified to comment on implications of this observation.)

  46. @46 well what seems just a little unreasonable, if not blatantly unconstitutional, about the proposed law is that real basically panhandling is asking people for money. That’s it. Obstructing traffic may well be aggressive but I’m pretty sure that is already illegal. Banning people from asking for money seems to be about as clear cut a case as you can get of violating the right to free speech.

  47. @36 You did it again Matty

    Only this time you continually assert your own straw man arguments.

    It is cute how you keep trying to reframe the scenario to fit into your narrowly defined perceptions.

    Unfortunately as others have pointed out to you already, we don’t live in a squishy touchy feel good nirvana. As others have also noted, homeless folks come in many flavors, as do druggies, and psychotics.

    Yes Matty I am much more moderate than you. I choose to look at the world in a realistic fashion that takes my safety into consideration foremost. Self preservation is sorta at the top of my little proverbial list.

    I won’t knock the topic further off course by trying to reason with you. Your prejudices and mischaracterizations are on display for all to see. You know damn well that the world doesn’t always go perfectly spiffy even when taking in all the precautions you espouse.

    If we completely ban all panhandling activities in the public space, it will further reduce the likelihood of me getting hassled. It will further reduce the odds of joe random from wanting to take it further in any fashion. I’m all about statistics too Matty… If we reduce almost all panhandling, and remove the top 50 worst from the equation it is a WIN WIN for everyone involved.

    And Yes Matty I have had people either knock on my window, whip out a squeegee, or bang on the side of my vehicle in multiple different states, including Seattle. Twice in the past 3 years I’ve had it done to me in Seattle. Once at 45th exit ramp, and once after exiting I 5 onto Cherry waiting for the light after the offramp under the bridge. One of those times they took me by complete surprise as I glanced down at my radio.

    You are a complete fucking moron if you don’t think I have rights to not have a bum knock on my window. They have no right to touch my private property without my consent. The right for them to “assemble” has nothing to do with approaching vehicles in a confined situation in traffic. That has been a huge part of the impetus for similar laws to this. And yes Matty, I DO have a right to pull a gun if I feel threatened by an approaching stranger who I can articulate appeared to be advancing towards me or my family. I am not required to keep said weapon hidden. Don’t worry, though… I’m not going to do that. The mere appearance of me holding my hand behind my back in my waistband has turned more than one person back around when they started approaching. They chose wisely not to continue approaching after being warned to stay back. However law abiding citizens should not have to deal with unknown people approaching motorists in traffic. That is exactly why car jackings became so popular in California.

    No Matty I’m no hard line conservative. Enact this strict law now IMO. Ohhh… and do Colorado a favor. Get your fucking whiny liberal ass out of that state. Whack job enviro liberals have really ruined what used to be a great state for the outdoors, and western way of life. I’m sure you’ve seen the bumper stickers right? 😉
    .

  48. Reality and Rotten are full of shit. So is Burgess; Gloomy Gus gets it — he’s shoring up his lawnorder bona-fides. Banging on your car windows? That’s already illegal. And it doesn’t happen.

    What we’re really talking about here is “should imaginary aggressive panhandling be illegal?” All these terrifically threatening episodes that Reality Check imagines while he’s masturbating next to his police scanner are BULLSHIT. Don’t happen; already illegal. Four words, that’s all you need to know.

    What this is really about is a desire by cruise ship companies that their passengers never see anything unpleasant or dirty or weird. What Burgess’s controllers want is to CLEAR THE STREETS: define homelessness as a crime, put panhandlers in jail (he’s aggressive, he spoke to me), and make the streets safe for obese morons in brand-new “Sleepless In Seattle” sweatshirts to drink their 80-ounce milkshakes without being disturbed by any unapproved, unlicensed city life.

  49. RC, it’s not very interesting or valid to project the sins you commit onto me. But it is sad that your grasp of what’s legal, and what rights you actually have, is as tenuous your grasp on reality.

  50. @47 There are already laws about how people can be solicited–everything from no-call-lists to truth-in-advertising laws. It is possible that ALL laws restricting solicitation are First Amendment violations, actually–have telemarketers ever challenged the no-call-list as a First Amendment violation? (I ask this seriously, not rhetorically, if anybody happens to know.)

    I admit ignorance on the intersection of solicitation laws and free speech rights, but if nothing else, there is certainly precedent.

Comments are closed.