Appeal Against Imprisonment for Journalism, Wednesday 23 February 112

I will never get back the four months of my life I spent locked at least 22.5 hours a day in a 12 foot by 8 foot cell. I have nothing personally to gain from carrying on the legal fight – I was a civil prisoner and do not have a criminal record.

But the legal distinction made by Lady Dorrian’s judgement between “new media” and “mainstream media”, in terms of their liability to prosecution and to imprisonment, has to be fought, because coming from a three judge bench of the High Court in Edinburgh it is a citable precedent throughout many English speaking jurisdictions (and is directly contrary to ECHR rulings).

On Wednesday we appeal to the nobile officium, the Scottish appeal court of five High Court judges, where Lord President Carloway will hear the appeal. In pursuit of my commitment to Open Justice and to giving readers original sources so they can make up their own mind, I had intended to publish our Submissions to the Court here, but the legal team informs me I cannot in law do this until the court starts its hearing. So watch this website on Wednesday.

However what I can tell you is that a common theme emerges from the various points of appeal – the arbitrariness of Lady Dorrian’s proceedings. Consider these points, all part of my appeal:

1) Neither the Crown nor the Court ever suggested in the proceedings or papers, a distinction between “mainstream media” or “new media”. It was never put to us, so we could never argue against it. Lady Dorrian simply formed it in her head and then set it in stone. Had the distinction been put to us at the trial, we would have wished to bring forward expert witnesses to refute Lady Dorrian’s dicta that “mainstream media” is more ethical than “new media”. To introduce the distinction into law is deeply worrying. To do so without hearing arguments is extraordinary.

2) The majority of the jigsaw clues to identification found in Lady Dorrian’s judgement, were never in the accusation against me, so we had no opportunity to refute them in court. The Crown identified in its petition a number of phrases they claimed could be identifying, and we argued in submissions and in my affidavits that this was not so. But Lady Dorrian in her judgement came up with a number of new phrases she stated were identifying, but which proposition had never been put to me in proceedings, and I had no idea were claimed to be identifying, until the judgement.

3) Lady Dorrian entirely discounted my affidavits as untruthful without ever putting that to me to give me a chance to respond. I submitted two detailed affidavits on oath setting out that it had never been my intention to disclose identities. I stated the steps I had taken to ensure I did not do so, and how my precaution was greater than that of the mainstream media. My counsel informed the court that I was prepared to answer any questions on my affidavits, either from the Crown or from the Court. Both Crown and Court declined to question me. The normal presumption is that if evidence is not challenged in court, it is accepted. To dismiss my affidavits with no cross-examination is extraordinary.

4) Lady Dorrian had based her substantial prison sentence on her judgement that I had “relished” giving clues to identity. This had not been alleged by the Crown, the court had heard no evidence from anybody to this effect, and it was directly contrary to my own unchallenged evidence on oath.

5) It is impossible for the journalist to know exactly where the line lies for “jigsaw identification”. My article of 11 March, for example, consisted entirely of material gleaned from mainstream media as I was not in court nor yet had my own sources in court on that day, yet I was found in contempt for publishing nothing but what the mainstream media had already published.

This is all remarkably arbitrary, in the most literal sense.

These are points of process. The more fundamental point is that I, as a journalist, had access to both written and eye witness evidence that led me to believe that the current First Minister of Scotland was orchestrating a plot to frame the former First Minister of Scotland on entirely false charges: a belief of which I am now quite certain. This was a matter of the highest possible public interest leading to an overwhelming Article 10 ECHR right to publish. I realised that right was in conflict with the Article 8 right of the accusers to the privacy ordered by the Court, and I did my best to balance the two (even when I was publishing articles on the plot for eight months before there was a court order in place protecting identities).

However, Lady Dorrian gave no weight whatsoever to the Article 10 Freedom of Speech side of this equation. This was worsened by the fact that the Crown held the documents which I had seen which convinced me of the plot against Salmond, many of which are still not public, and the Court refused my application for their disclosure, so I could assert the reasonable grounds for my belief in the plot against Salmond.

The current situation is that Wednesday’s appeal will be held with no public gallery and no streaming or dial-in access. I have asked my legal team to object to this, and will keep you posted. I am frankly furious that the public will be kept away from the hearing.

I am afraid that I am going to have to renew my appeal for funds to help with the legal costs. Fighting these kinds of actions is simply crippling. Your dedication to freedom and your support have so far saved me from personal bankruptcy, but we now need to raise a further £80,000 immediately.

Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above


Account name
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

112 thoughts on “Appeal Against Imprisonment for Journalism, Wednesday 23 February

1 2
  • Deepgreenpuddock

    To a non-legal like me, your case seems strong; but one wonders what happens if a judge has abused her powers or reveals a lack of capacity to consider a case in all its complexity.

    I am also aware that the case that saw you imprisoned was also favourable, but it didn’t stop it happening.

  • Unphotogenic

    Sincerely, all the best with this Craig.
    It’s time the wind changed, and the ‘just’ side starts to get some wins.

  • Jennifer Allan

    Good luck on Wednesday Craig. You will need it, although it is an absolute disgrace that ‘luck’ should be a factor in a lawful Court appeal within what is supposed to be a democracy. ‘Due Process’ this is NOT. Whatever the verdict, you are doing us all a favour by writing about this. You may not be permitted streaming or recording, but I don’t see why you should be denied the opportunity to take notes; if not you have a memory. It is most important to record the Judges’ reasons for refusing the appeal if this happens.

    I once quietly took my own minutes during an NHS so called ‘resolution’ meeting where I was alone, but there were 5 of them. The meeting was supposed to be about improving standards. An administration assistant took formal minutes, but they later denied taking any. During the meeting I was threatened. I won’t go into details but this was criminal. Thankfully, I’d had the foresight to collect all my original medical notes before the meeting, all safely locked up in my legal firm’s office. I did succeed in getting the ward brought up to standard for infection control, following a letter to the Government’s Health Department. This put the Nursing Director on my side at the meeting, although I had few complaints about the nursing care, which was excellent.

    If the Judges accept your arguments, then there is no question you are due compensation for those lost 4 months in prison. From where I’m sitting it does not look good. I’ll find you something from my pension.

  • Steve

    More strength to your arm Craig, you have been treated abominably by the system. None of what you report is “extraordinary” or “arbitrary” it is quite simply bought and paid for stooges carrying out their master’s diktats. Good luck to you

    • Deepgreenpuddock

      If only it was that simple. The corruption demonstrated in this case is much deeper than a bit of bribery or influence peddling. It’s about the invisible bending of the whole apparatus of the judiciary to achieve an outcome that suits or protects some unspoken interest. It is simply not credible that there was no involvement of the political elements in Scotland. If this was more widely understood it would cause widespread protest and civil disorder. The Assange case is the same. He is imprisoned illegally. It is a verging into the kind of justice that existed in the Stalin era in USSR and in the Philippines more recently where police were empowered to execute.
      We are at risk of becoming a police state.

      • Stevie Boy

        Unfortunately, the mass of the people are indifferent, they just want a quiet life. There won’t be any mass uprising, or reckoning. The masses are more concerned with the price of burgers or who is appearing on strictly. Cake and Circuses. We can only pick away at the corruption but the disease remains.

        • deepgreenpuddock

          Absolutely take your points but there is a bigger picture, I believe. Currently we have a very degraded form of democracy. It is a messy set of compromises and historical accidents which have been manipulated and shaped over decades to favour wealth accumulation and ownership. This process is embodied in an economic system that is dysfunctional and militates against equable or even near equable distribution of resources, let alone an efficient system of production and distribution that is respectful of the natural worlds limits. In effect, human activity is mining the ‘stored’ benefits of countless periods of time. And every way of measuring this is indicating a sharp decline in overall viability. The consumerism that is at the heart of our current disaffected, disengaged, populations cannot continue without consequences. If the idea of an advanced and sustainable world is to extend much further than 30 years hence there must be a fundamental re-organisation of social structures that will be consistent with a suspension of much of the materialism that guides most of us. A fully engaged, fully participative democracy is the only model that is consistent with continued civilisation.
          I am not optimistic. I suspect we will see constant continued competition over resources and constant technological piggy backing along market principles which won’t even acknowledge the fundamental dilemma. More wars, more degradation, more personality cults offering lovely silver magic bullets. Progressive erosion of science and enlightenment ideas and replacement with ‘woo woo’ phoney philosophical or romantic movements. We see it now with the continuing controversies over gender and anti-vax movements, and the facebook misinformation marketing machine. The choices are becoming stark.

          • Stevie Boy

            IMO, if people really want changes then FPTP must go and PR must be implemented. The trouble is this undermines the ‘establishment’ so it wont be allowed. The truth of this is demonstrated by all of the mainstream parties supporting FPTP – go figure.
            The current madness is now firmly embedded for decades to come. Change will happen but probably not in our lifetime.

          • Jay

            Stevie Boy

            We saw in the reaction to Corbyn’s bog-standard Euro-type reforms that not even the mildest change will be countenanced under any electoral system in Britain. PR is a panacea only if you close your eyes to the reality of the Lib dems, coalition shot callers every time round, under PR. Sir Ed Davey situated them to the right of the Tories economically at the last election and his permanent austerity policy was so popular among the Lib Dem rank and file they elected him leader after the election.

            The only significant change that actually existing PR would deliver would be this Lib Dem fantasy of a constitutionally required permanent budget surplus, something that had only existed previously in the most fevered dreams of Iain Duncan Smith.

          • Stevie Boy

            There are many, so called, types of PR. Some are just FPTP masquerading as PR. So I’m in agreement with your comment.
            The mistake is to let the ‘establishment’/current parties design the PR system. The major problem, IMO, is with ‘political parties’.
            I don’t know what the answer is, but I know what doesn’t work.

          • Deepgreenpuddock

            There is a very difficult problem which we are just getting glimpses into, national scale parties ARE a problem.They invite enormous asymmetries in power and the use and distribution of resources. One prat of a solution is localism but there is always a gravitational tendency for groups to coalesce around charismatic figures with the potential that creates for corruption. The very early era of the Russian revolution is a rather forgotten period because of its eclipse by Stalin and the descent into his form of messianic barbarism. in the period before Stalinism, no more than a very few years, there was a remarkable blossoming of art, culture, literature, architecture and radical innovative systems of politics and self organisation (non hierarchical) as the imaginations and energies of the population were released.
            Many people now are experiencing this great dislocation of agency and the anxiety of a declining economic ‘system’ (barely regulated market domination).There is very little energy given over to redesigning the way we actually live to make it compatible with the changing circumstances brought about by, amongst other factors, climate change, the marketisation of our societies and social structures has suppressed true individualism (innovation and communication) because it is overwhelmed by the inherent values of consumerism. I think if it was possible to do some kind of true poll of what the majority of people think, it would provide a very pessimistic view of the future with the only option for satisfaction is the ‘gaming’ of some small element of the market. Innovation is confined to tweakery and gimmicky exploitative schemes (often pyramid dressed up in some new clothes). Radicalism is fatally suppressed and is diverted into phony political initiatives such as we see with the Tory’s ‘levelling up’ ideas, doomed to fail because they don’t engage with the creative potential of wider humanity – it’s just another iteration of consumerism. Ok the consumerist dream is expanded or made accessible to some new individuals but it is not actually empowering in the longer term.
            I am pretty sure the current dominant ideology will crash and burn in an orgy of destruction through the old apocalyptic agents of change – famine, pestilence, war, collapse of cordial human relations, and collapse of fertility. Whatever emerges may be genuinely interesting and surprising.

  • Grouser

    Main stream are held to higher standards? Aye right! We’ve all read and heard some absolute corkers of lies in mainstream media.
    I am concerned that your case is being held away from public view. What happened to justice being seen to be done?
    I’ve made a donation to the fund but the last thing I would say is ‘Watch your back.’

  • Goodwin

    And the lack of comment or support from “the former First Minister of Scotland” is deafening.

    • Jimmy Riddle

      Very good point. Does anyone know what A.S. is doing right now? Any legal reason (for example preparing a legal action of his own – which for some reason would make it ill advised for him to comment on this one) why he should be silent?

      • W McRae

        My understanding from lawyer-friends who know about these things is that AS has very good reasons indeed for refraining from comment on any of these matters. I have been given (necessarily) limited details of these.

        As a supporter of CM and a contributor to all of his recent legal fighting funds, as well as being a firm life-long believer in Scottish independence AND that both AS and CM are the victims of a plot involving the SNP leadership, the Crown Office and other dark forces, I have no doubt that AS is absolutely correct to keep his counsel on these matters.

  • Ron Soak

    The in-context facts presented indicate at the very least some degree of making things up as you go along on the part of those with decision-making powers and responsibilities.

    As pointed out in this argument some of these decisions set some far-reaching procedural precedents which need to be challenged.

    Such precedents can have all sorts of unexpected, sometimes unintended, or not, impacts in all kinds of unrelated areas.

    Since the original case there have been other precedents which have occurred in a wider context which arguably could have unexpected impacts on cases like this one where a challenge to an official decision or narrative is dependent upon raising funding from the wider public.

    There have been a number of successful legal cases in recent times which have have gone forward on the basis of obtaining financial resources via crowdfunding means.

    The recent precedent, which will no doubt be challenged, set by the Canadian Government in this area could prove problematic in other instances where similar or related challenges based on opposing official policies, decisions and narratives are dependent upon funding from the wider public.

    It is plausible to anticipate that individuals, groups, organisations and institutions who have, to take one example, been successfully challenged in a recent high profile case in Scotland would be seeking to find ways to prevent such challenges using this means, both those presently in the process or in the future.

    Regardless of what position one takes in the events in Canada the fact is that the Canadian Government, along with a compliant official media, have set a precedent by going after the bank accounts of not only large contributors but also those of individuals. Freezing them and effectively preventing them from earning any kind of living on the basis of labelling them and their opinions/views as outside the law.

    Even if under limited time emergency powers accounts are unfrozen there exists no guarantee in this context that banks will continue to accept those targeted as customers. Such precedents have already been set in which people have lost their jobs or been forced out of employment on the basis of vexatious complaints from vociferous lobby groups.

    And if you cannot get a bank account you cannot get paid as an employee, or make and receive payments if you are self employed.

    In such circumstances it is prudent to cover all the bases and consider such factors.

    • Dr Les

      I disagree with your separatist politics and some of your other views. But I have donated to ensure similar views can be aired in public. I hope you win as it appears the “justice” you received is serving a temporary political master … or if not … appeal further

  • nevermind

    Best of luck for tommorrow Craig, lets hope that these well paid judges have not made their minds up before the proceedings and are looking at it afresh.
    Otherwise it looks like a Scottish judiciary setting new precedents for English judges to follow.

    • Wikikettle

      Such an important case, totally ignored by MSM. What does the NUJ think ? Used to be quite active a long time ago. Canada leading in the neo Liberal race by freezing Bank accounts ! What ever next ?

  • DunGroanin

    A pony expressing itself in addition to subscription.

    It is cowardly of the Court and Judges to not allow observers or even to produce a transcript of the proceedings.

    They are medieval in their power lust and to hide behind their ancient robes. It is daily a new demonstration of the facist state we live in and have mostly done throughout history. The Theological Monarchy – constitutional? Lol, Hell not when the laws are not applied equally to all and Queens and Judges make up excretions as they go along.

    Let us get CM to Strasbourg ASAP.
    (If they let him have a passport that is!)

  • Fiona Brown

    I am having problems making a credit or debit card payment. I can & will do by bank transfer this week if I don’t hear from you/your bods. (think ive got an email address password conflict some where in ‘google LOL

  • Formerly T-Bear

    The Star Chamber protecting Star Chamber gambit.
    Do either failure to obtain appeal or failure in favourable judgment lead directly to ECHR jurisdiction? Or does another appeal level intervene?
    Too bad Franz Kafka has already written The Trial and The Castle, now that you can report on reality, who will still notice it’s not fiction?
    Thank you for what you do and for what you have done. Immensely appreciated.

  • JontoScot21

    Craig. Your fight against the dark forces of the neu SNP establishment is critical. Contribution made.

  • Mist001

    I think that Strasbourg is a foregone conclusion too because if it rules in Craig’s favour, the UK will just ignore any ruling since it’s no longer in the EU or subject to its rulings. It’ll be something along those lines.

    Craig’s hit a brick wall here I think, so it has to be a choice of throwing money at a lost cause or accepting the way things have turned out. It’s not nice but sometimes you just have to ‘take’ it and move on.

    Don’t misunderstand me, I’d be delighted to be proved wrong and sincerely hope that I am, but this is how things appear to me at the moment.

      • Mist001

        Oh well, that makes it OK then. It’s enshrined into British law. Everything will go smoothly if Strasbourg rules in Craig’s favour. That’s set my mind at ease.

        What does the ‘E’ stand for?

    • Geoff C.

      Just contributed to the appeal fund, because an ultimate win is vital for the future.

      Some commentators seem to be confused about the European Court of Ham Rights (the Strasbourg Court) and its relevance to our legal system. This court is a creation of the Council of Europe, not the EU (even though EU membership requires membership of the Council of Europe). The Council of Europe predates the EU and its forebears. It consists of at least 47 countries including Russia, whereas the EU now has 27 Member States. Any country which wishes to remain a member of the Council of Europe is obliged to respect the decisions of the Strasbourg Court. A ruling against the UK at Strasbourg is effectively binding on the UK court system. A litigant wishing to take their case to the Court of Human Rights has to be able to demonstrate to the European Commission of Human Rights/Court of Human Rights that they have exhausted all potential remedies in their own domestic legal system. Thus, the proceedings commencing tomorrow are an essential step in what may be a much longer process of overturning the dreadful Dorrian decision.

  • Aidworker1

    Sorry Craig – I’ve just retired and my finances are a little uncertain at the moment. I’ve donated but can donate more once I’ve worked out my finances.

    All best wishes to you!

  • Leslie Ross

    Happy to contribute individually to this campaign in addition to the regular support enabling and encouraging you to continue your valued contribution.

  • Joe Mellon

    Why no public? Because they haven’t a legal leg to stand on, and it will be deeply embarrassing for the Scottish justice system, the judges who sat on the case and especially Lady Dorrian, who at some point – at the latest before the ECHR – will have her basic competence challenged. Her bid for the top job must surely be over.

  • nevermind

    today is special. On the 22.02.2022 at 2202 pm, we will have a date that is a palindrome and an ambigram. Trivia can be information, or boring…..

  • patriot

    I expect that Scotland will soon adopt the Canada playbook – harry the donors. I’m going to submit a false email. I know that this will not shield me from harm but, wtf, make ’em work.

  • Ronny

    Good luck, Craig.
    You need a Mozart who can recall everything he hears and transcribe it later.

  • Jm

    “To do so without hearing arguments is extraordinary.”

    Indeed Craig. That is the key. Quite extraordinary indeed, almost unbelievable but alas not in these twisted times sadly.

    Donation sent and the very best of luck.

  • Eva Smagacz

    So you are not allowed to present your side of the argument/defence either orally or in writing (because it is “unbelievable”).
    This basically means that any writing on matters of public interest is no more and no less than what prosecution says it is.
    Judgement is based entirely on the case of the prosecution.
    Intent is nothing. “My intent is to highlight abuses of those in power” – Irrelevant.
    “Your publication” put elite members’ nose out of joint – The only thing that is relevant.
    Got it.

    Welcome to postmodernism Sophistic relativism/subjectivism (sort of postmodernism where things are what it suits us for them to be).
    We have an era of New Justice which is eerily like “old justice” from pre-500AD.

    We are being transformed right back to 500BC where Sophists like Polemarchus argues that “justice” is treating people based on how we feel about them and Thrasymachus saying that “justice” is subjecting the subjects by rulers for rulers’ own chosen purposes.

    And we are worried that “Russia is coming”. Sigh……
    As far as I am concerned. Russia’s and China’s flavour of “democracy” is already here.

  • Deepgreenpuddock

    The essence of this case is, as anyone who cares to look knows, is the freedom to report on matters of public interest by an individual, as opposed to the ‘regulated’ or ‘authorised’ press with a range of editorial processes.

    [ — snip — ]

    You can read the rest of the comment on the newer thread “Your Man With the Petition: My Appeal Against Imprisonment for Journalism, 23 February”. Any responses should be posted there.

  • caltonjock

    Article by Calton Jock (1 Mar 2022, 830 words)

    Sometimes the truth is the biggest threat when exposure threatens a certain group. Such groups could be guilty of subverting the rule of law and this brings with it the possibility that someone will be going to jail over the truth and it shouldn’t have been Craig Murray

    The judgement of Lady Dorrian

    The arbitrary judgement of Lady Dorrian introducing a division of accountability between journalists of the “new media” and “mainstream media”, needs to be challenged and set aside since its retention as a legal judgement will establish dangerous precedence in Scottish law. The glaring flaw in her pronouncements is that control of media is retained by Westminster and online safety legislation is clearly at odds with her views.

    Extract: Craig Murray’s report on his appeal hearing 23 February 2022

    Lord Matthews said that the protection quoted in the ECHR case extended to investigative journalism and this was not investigative journalism. It said this applied to press offences, but was this a press offence? Was I a journalist?

    Lord Woolman asked whether, if I could be called a journalist, did that mean just anybody could be a journalist who published on social media?

    Dunlop replied anybody who was fulfilling the role of a public watchdog, according to the European Court of Human Rights.

    Lord Pentland said that particular judgement appeared to refer to NGOs rather than individuals.

    Dunlop said it specifically included bloggers.

    Pentland said he thought it mainly meant NGO but they would look at it.


    Comment: Dearie me!!! and this lot sit in judgement!!

    2021: The online-safety-bill-journalism-safeguards

    The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport confirmed that citizen journalists will have the same protections for their work as professional news providers. (

    2014: Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General

    The High Commissioner stated that sound, bold and independent journalism was vital in any democratic society. It drove the right to hold and express opinions and the right to seek, impart and receive information and ideas; it ensured transparency and accountability in the conduct of public affairs and other matters of public interest; and was the lifeblood that fuels the full and informed participation of all individuals in political life and decision-making processes.

    The Security Council, in its resolution 1738 (2006), the General Assembly, in its resolution 68/163, and the Human Rights Council, in its resolution 21/12, had all condemned attacks against journalists. They had called upon all States to act on their legal obligations to promote a safe and enabling environment for journalists so that they were able to perform their work independently and without undue interference.

    States must create an enabling environment in which the rights of journalists and other members of society could be fully respected, with clear and public agreement by officials that issues of public interest could, and should, be examined and discussed openly in the media.

    On the question of who could be considered a journalist, the High Commissioner confirmed that, from a human rights perspective, all individuals were entitled to the full protection of their human rights whether the State recognized them as journalists or not; whether they were professional reporters or “citizen journalists”; whether or not they had a degree in journalism; and whether they reported online or offline. In this context, she reminded the Council that the Human Rights Committee had, in its general comment no. 34, defined journalism as “a function shared by a wide range of actors, including professional full-time reporters and analysts, as well as bloggers and others who engage in forms of self-publication in print, on the Internet or elsewhere”.

    When fear prompts journalists to self-censor, the free flow of information is impaired, and the public is deprived of reliable, critical and independent information. States had both a duty to respect and a duty to protect journalists, who should be able to carry out their work unhindered and without fear. Governments were called upon to promote a safe and enabling environment for journalists, online as well as offline, so that they could perform their work independently, without undue interference and without fear of censorship, persecution or prosecution. This required political will, as well as legal and judicial measures, but also the fostering of a culture of respect for the critical role of the media in any democracy.

    Speakers noted that bloggers, online journalists and citizen journalists played an important role in the promotion of human rights. Threats and attacks against such actors, including through their unlawful or arbitrary detention, were condemned. Delegates stated that the protection of journalists should cover all news providers, both professional and non-professional. (

    Comment: Sometimes the truth is the biggest threat when exposure threatens a certain group. Such groups could be guilty of subverting the rule of law and this brings with it the possibility that someone will be going to jail over the truth and it shouldn’t be the Blogger.

    If you achieve a voice that will be heard, you should use it to speak up for the voiceless and oppressed. If you possess any power or authority, you must strive to use it to help and empower the powerless.

1 2

Comments are closed.