I was advised over the weekend that the new plans for the bowling alley do not indeed include car parking, and the reason for that is because the inadequately piled building would not take the weight of the cars. I cannot vouch for the original source of this, but they were aware of the piling issue, which is supposed to be a secret. I am inclined to think it does make sense.
We do know that there is legal action surrounding this. Does this action include our leaders pursuing those responsible for the value of the land needed to provide adequate parking?
And why oh why are we not treated like adults?
Sunday, 30 October 2011
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Bowling Alley to eat the Fun Park?
Although I was keen from the outset to contribute to this summer's public consultation on the future development of Exmouth, aka 'The Exmouth Masterplan', I must confess that procrastination and enjoyment of the summer meant that I remained conscious of the September 12th deadline, and didn't attempt to look at the ideas until August had passed.
Even when I heard rumours that the children's play park was to be turned into a car park for the Bowling Alley, I felt there was still plenty of time to mull things over and have my say.
By the time I did settle and attempt to access the documents, our community leaders were busy trying to boost the disappointing number of respondents.
There was an additional presentation in the Magnolia Centre on Sept 3rd. I noticed that the large display map showed a 'P' on the play park, though with no clarification in the accompanying text. The maps on the leaflets accompanying the consultation forms however did not indicate this idea for change.
That same evening I attempted to access the documents, but was unable to due to issues with my own computers. I was able to submit a comment to the appropriate section on the Masterplan website, amongst other things drawing attention to the links between the play park and the bowling alley.
My comment did not appear. I was advised that I should complain and approach the Journal about this.
I was also advised that I could get a copy of the proposals from the Town Hall. So I obtained one, and by the time I was ready to participate my computer also managed to access the detailed document on the website.
I was surprised that the linkage between the bowling alley and its neighbours was not conveyed in the document, particularly in the light of the rumours. I was also surprised that the families area was described as underperforming. I have queried this latter definition, but no one has been able to either provide me with an objective definition or to take responsibility for making it.
I was also surprised by the negative reference to the Harbour View Cafe/Coast Watch building, considering it personally to be a significant local feature in need of smartening up.
Having digested and prioritised my thoughts, I finally responded to the questionnaire on Sept 11th, the day before the deadline. I noticed my earlier comment had still not gone up and I added a further, much more informed comment to the website. Again this included linking the bowling alley to the plans for the surrounding areas. It was my assumption that the comments thread would provide an ongoing public facility for engagement with the process.
When this second comment did not go up I set about finding out who to complain to. This took some time, but by the fourth day my original comment was up. By coincidence this was the same day the Journal published an article saying Town Council planners had backed (not true) revised plans for the bowling alley and including a quote from one member stating that the number of lanes was to be reduced to four. This was also not true, but I still don't know if the mistake was made by the councillor or the Journal. The plans were in fact passed to the district (EDDC) planners with substantial objections from the town planners and the 'Exmouth Champion'.
Having read this article, I contacted the Masterplan consultants, asking why my second comment was still not up and making clear that I wished to make a further comment as a result of a recent development, once I had the chance to read my comments. The following day my second comment was up, but the thread had been closed. When I challenged this the correspondence was passed back to an EDDC officer who has still not responded either to the referral or two subsequent polite emails from me.
I also emailed all members of the EDDC planning committee urging them not to back the revised plans as they stood, and copied this to the 'Champion' and the town planners. There were inaccuracies in this because I took the Journal article at its word. I received two replies, one broadly supportive, the other recommending I get my facts right but not engaging with any of the substantial points.
The following Tuesday the plans were approved. There is no public record of any debate on the objections, particularly Cllr Cope's concerns about the car parking requirements, and no report of this planning decision in the Journal. Just a very positive plug for the bowling alley in the following week's edition which suggested they had been 'in the loop' for a while.
Now I am not one of those who think that all dodgy or apparently capricious decisions are influenced by back handers or funny handshakes. But it would be hard to think of a more effective way to fuel such suspicions, which do exist locally, than this.
The relationship of the bowling alley with its neighbours has been ignored in the Masterplan Consultation Document, either by incompetence or by design. Those neighbours are softened up by negative labelling in the document, though no one will take personal responsibility for those labels, or objectively justify them.
The revised planning application is rushed through with the legal minimum of public notice immediately the consultation is closed.
Comments on a public forum which highlight the relationships between the facilities are withheld without explanation. There is still no explanation, though this and the response to my queries are the subjects of a Freedom of Information request.
You may be surprised to learn that I am pro the bowling alley. But I understood that its parking facilities were to be part of the development. If this is no longer the case the issues and changes should be clearly aired rather than pushed through with some subterfuge, creating a situation where the bowling alley is seen as needing to eat up a much loved play area which has been used fully by local families and visitors alike for as long as I can remember.
The official line is that Queen's Drive is to be rerouted through the existing car park to allow for enhancement of the Esplanade at this point, and that the families facilities will be relocated within this area, along with the artistic enhancements and the 'Exmouth Splash' facilities etc. There seems to be an awful lot of competition for finite space, and the relative allocation of space and of car parking numbers 'has not yet been considered'.
As I have said, I don't believe that corruption is involved. However I do believe that arrogance and complacency are significant issues. The powers that be have closed the doors on our ability to publicly comment and maintain an ongoing, transparent dialogue.
This is reminiscent of what has happened in The Strand, where they appear to genuinely believe they held a comprehensive consultation process. In fact, they held a fragmented consultation. Initially one of the significant elements was a small performance stage. For this to have worked it would have been necessary to relocate the War Memorial, and this idea was indeed raised. But when the '3 options' leaflets were published all 3 maintained the existing position of the memorial. The idea had already been dismissed. The performance stage had now become a multi use site, still with a small footprint.
It was not until the work on The Strand had commenced, initially with the removal of the trees, then the drainage, that we were made aware that the building had metamorphosed into our very own mini-Shard, complete with dominating commercial premises, and causing uproar. Then it was announced that due to financial issues this icon would not now be built. This was dressed up as a 'cost overrun', which is something that applies when a project in progress has run over budget.
What actually happened is that somebody, presumably the architects, got their sums stratospherically wrong, and that these errors were not picked up promptly by anyone charged with their oversight. This has been confirmed to me by a local councillor. When I asked why we could not just be told the truth about this I was met with a resigned shrugging of shoulders.
Who do these people think they are that they feel it is acceptable to lie to us just to save the blushes of their pals? And to stone wall our legitimate queries? Do they think we are stupid, or just worthless? How much did these failures cost us, and who is picking up the tab?
Those last four paragraphs have been a digression, to be brought up again when they resurrect that project. But note with caution that the Masterplan document is littered with references to iconic buildings.
Regarding the principal topic of this post, permission has now been given for the changes to the bowling alley. This means in practice more retail units and less amenity in terms of function space and bowling lanes. It also permits further obstruction of the former panoramic views and increases the need for parking space, thus limiting the options available for the areas close by.
Why were these issues not heralded and linked in an open and transparent manner? Why were simple explanations not forthcoming to straightforward queries, and why are EDDC apparently needing the full 20 days to respond to a simple FoI request?
Why did the Journal not tell us more about what was happening? Also why are they not interested in correcting their article of 15th Sept. or in getting to the bottom of the withheld comments?
Even when I heard rumours that the children's play park was to be turned into a car park for the Bowling Alley, I felt there was still plenty of time to mull things over and have my say.
By the time I did settle and attempt to access the documents, our community leaders were busy trying to boost the disappointing number of respondents.
There was an additional presentation in the Magnolia Centre on Sept 3rd. I noticed that the large display map showed a 'P' on the play park, though with no clarification in the accompanying text. The maps on the leaflets accompanying the consultation forms however did not indicate this idea for change.
That same evening I attempted to access the documents, but was unable to due to issues with my own computers. I was able to submit a comment to the appropriate section on the Masterplan website, amongst other things drawing attention to the links between the play park and the bowling alley.
My comment did not appear. I was advised that I should complain and approach the Journal about this.
I was also advised that I could get a copy of the proposals from the Town Hall. So I obtained one, and by the time I was ready to participate my computer also managed to access the detailed document on the website.
I was surprised that the linkage between the bowling alley and its neighbours was not conveyed in the document, particularly in the light of the rumours. I was also surprised that the families area was described as underperforming. I have queried this latter definition, but no one has been able to either provide me with an objective definition or to take responsibility for making it.
I was also surprised by the negative reference to the Harbour View Cafe/Coast Watch building, considering it personally to be a significant local feature in need of smartening up.
Having digested and prioritised my thoughts, I finally responded to the questionnaire on Sept 11th, the day before the deadline. I noticed my earlier comment had still not gone up and I added a further, much more informed comment to the website. Again this included linking the bowling alley to the plans for the surrounding areas. It was my assumption that the comments thread would provide an ongoing public facility for engagement with the process.
When this second comment did not go up I set about finding out who to complain to. This took some time, but by the fourth day my original comment was up. By coincidence this was the same day the Journal published an article saying Town Council planners had backed (not true) revised plans for the bowling alley and including a quote from one member stating that the number of lanes was to be reduced to four. This was also not true, but I still don't know if the mistake was made by the councillor or the Journal. The plans were in fact passed to the district (EDDC) planners with substantial objections from the town planners and the 'Exmouth Champion'.
Having read this article, I contacted the Masterplan consultants, asking why my second comment was still not up and making clear that I wished to make a further comment as a result of a recent development, once I had the chance to read my comments. The following day my second comment was up, but the thread had been closed. When I challenged this the correspondence was passed back to an EDDC officer who has still not responded either to the referral or two subsequent polite emails from me.
I also emailed all members of the EDDC planning committee urging them not to back the revised plans as they stood, and copied this to the 'Champion' and the town planners. There were inaccuracies in this because I took the Journal article at its word. I received two replies, one broadly supportive, the other recommending I get my facts right but not engaging with any of the substantial points.
The following Tuesday the plans were approved. There is no public record of any debate on the objections, particularly Cllr Cope's concerns about the car parking requirements, and no report of this planning decision in the Journal. Just a very positive plug for the bowling alley in the following week's edition which suggested they had been 'in the loop' for a while.
Now I am not one of those who think that all dodgy or apparently capricious decisions are influenced by back handers or funny handshakes. But it would be hard to think of a more effective way to fuel such suspicions, which do exist locally, than this.
The relationship of the bowling alley with its neighbours has been ignored in the Masterplan Consultation Document, either by incompetence or by design. Those neighbours are softened up by negative labelling in the document, though no one will take personal responsibility for those labels, or objectively justify them.
The revised planning application is rushed through with the legal minimum of public notice immediately the consultation is closed.
Comments on a public forum which highlight the relationships between the facilities are withheld without explanation. There is still no explanation, though this and the response to my queries are the subjects of a Freedom of Information request.
You may be surprised to learn that I am pro the bowling alley. But I understood that its parking facilities were to be part of the development. If this is no longer the case the issues and changes should be clearly aired rather than pushed through with some subterfuge, creating a situation where the bowling alley is seen as needing to eat up a much loved play area which has been used fully by local families and visitors alike for as long as I can remember.
The official line is that Queen's Drive is to be rerouted through the existing car park to allow for enhancement of the Esplanade at this point, and that the families facilities will be relocated within this area, along with the artistic enhancements and the 'Exmouth Splash' facilities etc. There seems to be an awful lot of competition for finite space, and the relative allocation of space and of car parking numbers 'has not yet been considered'.
As I have said, I don't believe that corruption is involved. However I do believe that arrogance and complacency are significant issues. The powers that be have closed the doors on our ability to publicly comment and maintain an ongoing, transparent dialogue.
This is reminiscent of what has happened in The Strand, where they appear to genuinely believe they held a comprehensive consultation process. In fact, they held a fragmented consultation. Initially one of the significant elements was a small performance stage. For this to have worked it would have been necessary to relocate the War Memorial, and this idea was indeed raised. But when the '3 options' leaflets were published all 3 maintained the existing position of the memorial. The idea had already been dismissed. The performance stage had now become a multi use site, still with a small footprint.
It was not until the work on The Strand had commenced, initially with the removal of the trees, then the drainage, that we were made aware that the building had metamorphosed into our very own mini-Shard, complete with dominating commercial premises, and causing uproar. Then it was announced that due to financial issues this icon would not now be built. This was dressed up as a 'cost overrun', which is something that applies when a project in progress has run over budget.
What actually happened is that somebody, presumably the architects, got their sums stratospherically wrong, and that these errors were not picked up promptly by anyone charged with their oversight. This has been confirmed to me by a local councillor. When I asked why we could not just be told the truth about this I was met with a resigned shrugging of shoulders.
Who do these people think they are that they feel it is acceptable to lie to us just to save the blushes of their pals? And to stone wall our legitimate queries? Do they think we are stupid, or just worthless? How much did these failures cost us, and who is picking up the tab?
Those last four paragraphs have been a digression, to be brought up again when they resurrect that project. But note with caution that the Masterplan document is littered with references to iconic buildings.
Regarding the principal topic of this post, permission has now been given for the changes to the bowling alley. This means in practice more retail units and less amenity in terms of function space and bowling lanes. It also permits further obstruction of the former panoramic views and increases the need for parking space, thus limiting the options available for the areas close by.
Why were these issues not heralded and linked in an open and transparent manner? Why were simple explanations not forthcoming to straightforward queries, and why are EDDC apparently needing the full 20 days to respond to a simple FoI request?
Why did the Journal not tell us more about what was happening? Also why are they not interested in correcting their article of 15th Sept. or in getting to the bottom of the withheld comments?
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
Foaming at the mouth.
Last weekend my young son asked me what was the funniest thing I'd ever seen. I was rather stumped. I could think of a few things, but I was certain there must be occasions that brought more real hilarity than these.
The following day the olympian archer's aim of a seagull provided a new addition to the chart.
Yesterday's Johnny Mumbles/Wendi Murdoch incident reminded me of another.
A regular rag week feature in my college days was the 'Baffia'. For 50p for charity I think it was these clowns in gorilla masks would flan the person of your choice, if possible at a time and location of your choosing.
During my first year rag week fell during a once a week whole year course of Philosophy lectures Something approaching 200 students listening to a bearded, bespectacled chap who while he did know his subject, was lacking in presence and dynamism. A rumour went around that there were 5 contracts to be fulfilled during this week's lecture, and a large part of the audience were a little more awake than usual wondering if the hits would take place.
20 minutes in they arrived, and there were indeed 5 flans. It wasn't actually terribly funny. Four of the known targets were quickly located, but they had trouble finding the fifth.
After searching as long as they ought, they decided to leave. The chap with the spare flan was unable to resist the temptation of that beard as he departed.
The lecturer removed his glasses and cleaned them. He wiped the foam from his nose so that he could breathe, and from his mouth to enable him to speak. He replaced his glasses and continued.
The hall erupted with laughter. He knew his lecture off by heart, but to continue with so much foam still in beard, moustache, eyebrows and bushy hair was initially too much for us. He paused. Gradually the mirth subsided until he was able to continue, punctuated by no more than the occasional girlish giggle.
His indignity had an unexpected result. He had our whole, unchallenged attention for the rest of the lecture, and its' message was absorbed. I would not go so far as to say that continued for the rest of the series, but for that lecture what happened benefitted him and us.
Yesterday's events also had unexpected results. Those few misguided steps from the unfunny Mr Mumbles undermined UKUncut, created sympathy for the elder Mr Murdoch, and made an unlikely folk heroine out of a woman previously best known for splitting two (or is it three) marriages in pursuit of her manifest destiny.
Those who witnessed or heard Mrs Murdoch's volleyball spike on the head of the hapless clown will have been impressed by her formidable powers. Though on yesterday's evidence, even she must have been challenged when having decided to increase the size of the family payroll, in getting her husband to rise to the occasion.
This will now be the most remembered part of these hearings, eclipsing anything of more substance. My favourite moment, missed by most commentators, was the look on James Murdoch's face when asked to confirm that all payments for stories were reported to the tax authorities.
The following day the olympian archer's aim of a seagull provided a new addition to the chart.
Yesterday's Johnny Mumbles/Wendi Murdoch incident reminded me of another.
A regular rag week feature in my college days was the 'Baffia'. For 50p for charity I think it was these clowns in gorilla masks would flan the person of your choice, if possible at a time and location of your choosing.
During my first year rag week fell during a once a week whole year course of Philosophy lectures Something approaching 200 students listening to a bearded, bespectacled chap who while he did know his subject, was lacking in presence and dynamism. A rumour went around that there were 5 contracts to be fulfilled during this week's lecture, and a large part of the audience were a little more awake than usual wondering if the hits would take place.
20 minutes in they arrived, and there were indeed 5 flans. It wasn't actually terribly funny. Four of the known targets were quickly located, but they had trouble finding the fifth.
After searching as long as they ought, they decided to leave. The chap with the spare flan was unable to resist the temptation of that beard as he departed.
The lecturer removed his glasses and cleaned them. He wiped the foam from his nose so that he could breathe, and from his mouth to enable him to speak. He replaced his glasses and continued.
The hall erupted with laughter. He knew his lecture off by heart, but to continue with so much foam still in beard, moustache, eyebrows and bushy hair was initially too much for us. He paused. Gradually the mirth subsided until he was able to continue, punctuated by no more than the occasional girlish giggle.
His indignity had an unexpected result. He had our whole, unchallenged attention for the rest of the lecture, and its' message was absorbed. I would not go so far as to say that continued for the rest of the series, but for that lecture what happened benefitted him and us.
Yesterday's events also had unexpected results. Those few misguided steps from the unfunny Mr Mumbles undermined UKUncut, created sympathy for the elder Mr Murdoch, and made an unlikely folk heroine out of a woman previously best known for splitting two (or is it three) marriages in pursuit of her manifest destiny.
Those who witnessed or heard Mrs Murdoch's volleyball spike on the head of the hapless clown will have been impressed by her formidable powers. Though on yesterday's evidence, even she must have been challenged when having decided to increase the size of the family payroll, in getting her husband to rise to the occasion.
This will now be the most remembered part of these hearings, eclipsing anything of more substance. My favourite moment, missed by most commentators, was the look on James Murdoch's face when asked to confirm that all payments for stories were reported to the tax authorities.
Sunday, 1 May 2011
Royal nuptuals
Rather too long since I've been on here, busy elsewhere. Watched rather more than I expected of the royal wedding on TV, never even been in the house for any previous such event. This time I had things to do and was primed and ready to go, but became intrigued by the who was there and who was arriving stuff and couldn't drag myself away until they OD'd with the C19th churchy stuff.
Highlights were Simon Scharma on the minor royals in minibuses 'like a football team playing away', and Randy Andy shiftily perving the bride. Would've done justice to his Spitting Image puppet.
Lowlights every time 'that awful Nicholas Witchell' opened his mouth to justify wingnut's comment but also demonstrate why he hasn't found a job somewhere else.
Highlights were Simon Scharma on the minor royals in minibuses 'like a football team playing away', and Randy Andy shiftily perving the bride. Would've done justice to his Spitting Image puppet.
Lowlights every time 'that awful Nicholas Witchell' opened his mouth to justify wingnut's comment but also demonstrate why he hasn't found a job somewhere else.
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
Localism 2
Exmouth's new Strand is taking shape, and people were beginning to say nice things about it. Until the recent planning display and application for the Shard. Sorry, of course this is the performance stage or rather it was the performance stage but now is to be a two storey inside plus more seating outside cafe so that the existing traders have healthy competition and DCC can get some revenue back while the performance stage aspect becomes a shoebox on the side which limits its usefulness. At least people won't be tempted to stand on the war memorial to watch the entertainment, they wouldn't see anything.
We have posted before that work seemed to have started before the planning and consultation was complete, and here we have clear evidence that that is the case.
Now the existing proprieters are objecting; then the manager of the Bargain Booze store which shouldn't be there is complaining that the eyesore bus shelter shouldn't be there either, a point with which we would agree.
All this is happening while we are waiting for the private sector consultants to come up with their town centre plan and subsequently commissioned seafront plan, so everything is very coherent and joined up. The cart has arrived long before the horse. And the bowling alley is still incapacitated with piles.
Meanwhile EDDC are seeking to offload their responsibilities. They have already offloaded the flower
beds, taken on by the town council and currently seeking sponsorship. A similar thing happened, I believe to the seafront lights. Now they are planning to stop sand dune maintenance. Apart from the effect this would have on the essential tourism, what is to be gained from spending money on a seafront plan which could be produced by community organisations when the responsible authority is happy to let the beach invade the seafront?
One answer might be to explore any possibility within the Localism policy flagship to separate Exmouth from the rest of the district. Our council tax pays for the services of the wealthy folk in Sidmouth and West Hill. If they are to cheese pare off specific essential functions then let them see what it is like to go without.
The local elections are coming up. Perhaps we could tackle this ConDem coalition and our specific local problems with some truly locally focused candidates.
www.independentnetwork.org
We have posted before that work seemed to have started before the planning and consultation was complete, and here we have clear evidence that that is the case.
Now the existing proprieters are objecting; then the manager of the Bargain Booze store which shouldn't be there is complaining that the eyesore bus shelter shouldn't be there either, a point with which we would agree.
All this is happening while we are waiting for the private sector consultants to come up with their town centre plan and subsequently commissioned seafront plan, so everything is very coherent and joined up. The cart has arrived long before the horse. And the bowling alley is still incapacitated with piles.
Meanwhile EDDC are seeking to offload their responsibilities. They have already offloaded the flower
beds, taken on by the town council and currently seeking sponsorship. A similar thing happened, I believe to the seafront lights. Now they are planning to stop sand dune maintenance. Apart from the effect this would have on the essential tourism, what is to be gained from spending money on a seafront plan which could be produced by community organisations when the responsible authority is happy to let the beach invade the seafront?
One answer might be to explore any possibility within the Localism policy flagship to separate Exmouth from the rest of the district. Our council tax pays for the services of the wealthy folk in Sidmouth and West Hill. If they are to cheese pare off specific essential functions then let them see what it is like to go without.
The local elections are coming up. Perhaps we could tackle this ConDem coalition and our specific local problems with some truly locally focused candidates.
www.independentnetwork.org
Localism
An interesting development in recent months has been the willingness of Exmouth Town Council, in the guise of its Conservative mayor Darryl Nicholas to in the nicest possible way call a spade a spade with regard to the relationship between Exmouth and EDDC, as personified by Sidmouth. The particular areas in which it was manifest related to the disproportionate new housing burden to be placed on Exmouth in the local development plan, and the apparent unfairness in rates of snow clearance within the district. There was at one point even a suggestion that the impending departure of Sara Randall Johnson as council leader represented an opportunity for change.
The snow clearance claims were dealt with by a spokesman who defended clearing the council's headquarters as their duty of care to employees and clarified the minimal cost. Presumably there was also a duty of care to others who had to go to work such the carers visiting elderly people in their homes, one of whom fell and smashed her elbow. The spokesman also indicated that the County Council had responsibility for clearing the highways etc., but did not comment on the alleged preferential treatment given to some towns over others within the district.
The challenge over the allocation of new housing seemed to have borne fruit, as EDDC promised to reconsider in a further consultation process. However, the fightback has begun.
Despite the blight that EDDC decisions have brought to parts of for example Exmouth and Seaton, often overruling town planners, when a local TV programme makes a feature on new developments spoiling the environment it focuses on a development in an AONB just outside Sidmouth. I would agree that it is not a desirable development, but it is hardly a reflection of the bigger picture. And up pops our old friend Sara Randall Johnson to pontificate about the difficulty of complying with the council's obligations.
Am I too much of a conspiracy theorist in assuming that this is the first public step in reinforcing their original projections by emphasising the burden being placed on Sidmouth? And is not the main reason they have allowed this development out of town is that they are determined that they shouldn't have to do their fair share within its boundaries?
The snow clearance claims were dealt with by a spokesman who defended clearing the council's headquarters as their duty of care to employees and clarified the minimal cost. Presumably there was also a duty of care to others who had to go to work such the carers visiting elderly people in their homes, one of whom fell and smashed her elbow. The spokesman also indicated that the County Council had responsibility for clearing the highways etc., but did not comment on the alleged preferential treatment given to some towns over others within the district.
The challenge over the allocation of new housing seemed to have borne fruit, as EDDC promised to reconsider in a further consultation process. However, the fightback has begun.
Despite the blight that EDDC decisions have brought to parts of for example Exmouth and Seaton, often overruling town planners, when a local TV programme makes a feature on new developments spoiling the environment it focuses on a development in an AONB just outside Sidmouth. I would agree that it is not a desirable development, but it is hardly a reflection of the bigger picture. And up pops our old friend Sara Randall Johnson to pontificate about the difficulty of complying with the council's obligations.
Am I too much of a conspiracy theorist in assuming that this is the first public step in reinforcing their original projections by emphasising the burden being placed on Sidmouth? And is not the main reason they have allowed this development out of town is that they are determined that they shouldn't have to do their fair share within its boundaries?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)