The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


Distraction strategies

Posted on April 16, 2013 by

It’s gone midnight and we don’t normally do speculation, but as it’s already showing up in our incoming searches we’ve spent the last little while trying to work out what’s gone on between SNP MP Angus Robertson, Labour MP John Mann and the Herald in the last 24 hours. So first let’s establish the known facts, then have the attempted deduction, and hopefully by the morning read the official clarifications.

—————————————————————

KNOWN FACTS

1. Yesterday morning (so it would have been written on Sunday evening), the Herald published a story in which it attributed the quote “If Alistair Darling hangs on to this cash, the No campaign will be tarnished” to John Mann. You can see a picture of the print edition here, and a hard-to-read but legible shot of a cached online version here.

2. Late yesterday morning, the SNP website published a press release quoting the Herald quoting John Mann. That page has now been deleted from the site, but there’s a saved version here.

3. The Herald has now edited the original piece to attribute the quote to Angus Robertson. (Worryingly, there’s no acknowledgement anywhere on the page that the story has been altered, which seems to be dismayingly standard practice.)

4. Mann and various Labour activists are gleefully jumping up and down all over Twitter about “SNP dirty tricks”, insisting that Robertson will have to resign – including Ian Smart, who has what we’ll very generously call a less-than-perfect record when predicting such things.

—————————————————————

ATTEMPTED DEDUCTION

So far as we can figure out by the power of reasoning alone, there are only two possible even-remotely-plausible explanations for this course of events, and one of them stretches the bounds of believability to their limits.

(a) Angus Robertson has the IQ of a pebble, and thought it would be a wizard wheeze to deliberately feed the Herald a fake quote, inexplicably and insanely believing that Mann would never get to hear about it and cry foul. (This explanation also requires that the Herald would print a “quote” from Mann based only on the say-so of an opponent in the first place, without checking or saying “according to SNP MP Angus Robertson…”, which is barely any less mad.)

(b) Robertson gave the Herald the quote on his own behalf, there was some sort of sub-editing mix-up at the paper and it was accidentally attributed to Mann, then an enthusiastic SNP press officer saw the story on Monday morning and bashed out a press release in good faith – having no conceivable reason to doubt what the Herald had printed, staffed as the paper is with skilled, dedicated and diligent professional journalists and Magnus Gardham.

—————————————————————

If the reality turns out to be (a), then clearly Robertson’s position is untenable. That explanation does, however, strike us as so suicidally absurd as to be ridiculous.

If it’s (b), then it’s an innocent and understandable error – chiefly on the part of the Herald – which Labour are clutching at desperately, like a drowning man at a straw, in an attempt to smear attention away from the entire Ian Taylor donations furore.

At this point we can’t imagine what a (c) would be. We’ve contacted John Mann asking for clarification, but have as yet received no reply. (In fairness it’s pretty late.)

Right now, taking the previous character of the respective protagonists – that is, Angus Robertson and the Labour Party – into account, we’re going with (b). Perhaps by the time we get up in the morning all will be clear and it’ll turn out we’re wrong, and someone will have handed Robertson a bottle of whisky and a revolver. Or on the other hand, a blind-panic-stricken Scottish Labour might be frantically smashing to pieces whatever fragments of credibility it has left.

(It’s perhaps worth remembering that even if Mann didn’t say these particular words on this occasion, he definitely IS on record as saying Ian Taylor’s cash is “dirty money” that’s unsuitable for political donations, as recently as last autumn, and therefore presumably he actually DOES think it should be given back by “Better Together”, unless he wants the No campaign to be funded by money he regards as unethical.)

Either way it should be interesting.

[EDIT 11.19am: Looks like we called it exactly right.]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

56 to “Distraction strategies”

  1. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    Mann has also referred to a Sunday Times piece. I can’t find one mentioning him, though, only this on the subject:

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/sundaytimes.jpg

  2. ElaineS
    Ignored
    says:

    Great deduction and one I think the more and more folk think about the whole scenario its definitely leaves a lot to be believed as a straight forward “Its all the dirty tricks of SNP” grinning from #bettertogether camp who I presume were just looking for the “perfect” distraction to their dodgy donation…..after all whatever is fact or fiction in this AngusRobertson/JohnMann/Herald debacle it doesn’t take away from the fact #BETTERTOGETHER CAMP STILL TOOK A DONATION FROM A QUESTIONABLE SOURCE AND IS SO FAR REFUSING TO GIVE IT BACK”

    Now correct me if I’m wrong, isn’t it a little surprising this has all came about when the heat was well and truly turned up. I think the people of Scotland have long since stopped believing in all they read in the media and all that is spoken by many politicians,the days of Labour being an honest,trustworthy party in Scotland are long gone so I think #bettertogether folk and their wee henchmen like Ian Smart etc should stop insulting the public as if they don’t have two braincells to rub together. The people of Scotland will not take for gospel what is being thrown into the works by #bettertogether,after all they have taken a dodgy donation and won’t hand it back….why should they be trusted.

  3. Peter A Bell
    Ignored
    says:

    Must admit that I thought at first it was the SNP’s error. But now that the earlier versions of the article have come to light it’s a totally different story. If John Mann and British Labour have any sense they’ll let this die overnight.

  4. Adrian B
    Ignored
    says:

    Not directly connected to this story, but one of my links isn’t working – its a cash for questions link from the Telegraph:
     
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9168496/Cash-for-access-The-Tory-donor-who-profited-from-links-with-Libyan-rebels.html
     

  5. Barontorc
    Ignored
    says:

    Didn’t Labour MP John Mann already question Taylor/ Vitol as being dodgy in Westminster’s Hansard?

  6. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    I was just adding something along those lines as you wrote that.

  7. Doug Daniel
    Ignored
    says:

    Peter: “If John Mann and British Labour have any sense they’ll let this die overnight.”
     
    In which case, I take it we’re all expecting it to be in the papers tomorrow? Maybe with a Jackie Baillie quote about how terrible it is when elected politicians knowingly mislead the public.

  8. ElaineS
    Ignored
    says:

    and finally with a quote from John Mann about Vitol money donated to Tories
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9569231/Vitol-faces-questions-on-trade-with-Iran.html

    But Vitol was accused of “immoral” trade and “backing corrupt regimes” by John Mann MP, a Labour member of the Treasury Select Committee, who demanded that the Tory party hand back the “dirty money” it had received from Mr Taylor.

  9. Doug Daniel
    Ignored
    says:

    Actually, if the one thing that came out of this was the SNP press office started double-checking releases before publishing them, it would hardly be a bad thing. They regularly go out with silly typos and the like. That “comments shows” bit really grates with me. It should be “comments show”, singular. 

  10. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    To be fair, if I rang up every newspaper in the country before every post, saying “Are you really sure the quote you attributed today was really said by the person you said said it?”, nobody would get much of anything done.

    No excuses for grammar, but if they’ve published something in good faith which turned out to be wrong because the source was wrong, then pulling the page and saying sorry is the absolute most you can ask.

  11. ElaineS
    Ignored
    says:

    What I can’t understand is if reading this piece in Scottish Times last Thursday, there is no mention of Angus Robertson quoting Mann about #bettertogether handing back donation but in this piece below Darling’s head its mentioned Robertson quoting what Mann said about Vitol donation to the Tories….thats a completely different but truthful thing Robertson quoted about and those links above confirm what Mann said about Tories taking the donation and should hand it back.
    http://www.scottishtimes.com/tags/scottish_independence

  12. jafurn50
    Ignored
    says:

     
    Mr Mann has been very consistent in his condemnation of  ‘donors and why they give donations’ Here is something he is ‘quoted’  to have said in the Mail online  on  18 October 2011
     
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050331/Michael-Hintze-Hedge-fund-baron-David-Camerons-sugar-daddy.html
     
    ” …Labour MP John Mann has asked the Electoral Commission to investigate. He said: ‘Michael Hintze is the new Godfather of Tory donations.
     
    ..He is putting his money behind the key people in the party very deliberately. People never give money for nothing. They want something in return, they want influence. (my emphasis)
     
    ‘Michael Hintze is a hedge fund boss and where he wants influence is over financial regulation. He does not have to ask Tory Ministers for anything, the act of giving simply changes their behaviour.
     
    …When they come to consider the issue of financial regulation they are much less likely to do something if it upsets someone who makes such generous donations”
     
     
     
    If that was what Mr Mann thought / said back in 2011 and given that he has said something similar with regard to ‘donations’ later given to the Conservative party (well documented by now) I would only wonder why it is now different and apparently OK for Better Together to accept ‘similar’ donations without at least some questions being raised.
     
    My first question would be ‘Given that People never give money for nothing. They want something in return, they want influence’ ..what, in the opinion of Mr Mann, that ‘influence’ would be.
     
    Also given that Mr Cameron himself has said that the reason he feels it would be wrong for him to debate Mr Salmond is that he ‘doesn’t have a vote’.. how then can Better together square that with this gentleman seeking ‘influence’ when ,as far as I am aware , he has no vote in the referendum either.
     

  13. ElaineS
    Ignored
    says:

    Heres another blog about Angus Robertson’s letter but once again all it is stating in his letter Robertson mentioned about Darling’s Lab colleague John Mann who spoke about Tories taking a donation of Ian TAylor and Vitol. Seems to me its Herald that “misquoted” Angus Robertson. what I do think about many articles relating to Mann is he is very outspoken when it comes to things like taking dodgy donations or corrupt ‘bankers and their payouts, he doesn’t give me the impression he’d be happy for his own party to be linked to taking a donation of the very person he demanded Tories hand back the donation to
    http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/7158-pressure-builds-on-darling-over-controversial-no-campaign-donation

  14. jude
    Ignored
    says:

    If you google the quote and The Herald together, the quote is still under The Herald banner.

  15. Gayle
    Ignored
    says:

    Here is the piece from the SNP site http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/apr/labour-former-fm-distances-himself-donation
    The only reference I can see that links Mr Robertson and the Sunday Times is where he says the Sunday Times carries details. The quote about dirty money is in several newspapers such as http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9569231/Vitol-faces-questions-on-trade-with-Iran.html  
    Of course, this could be totally unrelated, though it fits with the details provided (so far). Add that to the article above with the editing out but no mention of the change from the Herald.
    Should probably point out at this point that in looking for an answer to this wee puzzle I found that the use of “dirty tricks” is a common theme for him as is sending letters to tweeters who call him fat. (letter is on youtube)

  16. ianbrotherhood
    Ignored
    says:

    From today’s Herald (page 2):
     
    ‘In yesterday’s Herald we reported John Mann, Labour MP for Bassetlaw, as saying that, if Alastair Darling of Better Together held on to a donation of £500,000 from Ian Taylor of Vitol, the No campaign would be tarnished. We mistakenly attributed the quote. The comments were, in fact, made by Angus Robertson, SNP MP for Moray. We apologise for the error.’

  17. Gayle
    Ignored
    says:

    Nice, cleared that up and it was an honest mistake. 🙂

  18. Tattie-boggle
    Ignored
    says:

    O/T I see Dear old Auntie is up to no good again
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20042070

  19. grahamski
    Ignored
    says:

    Oh well, that’s fine then. Nothing to see here, move along now…

  20. Patrick Roden
    Ignored
    says:

    OT/ has anyone saw todays article by Magnus Gardham ?
    If Magnus is reporting that people are asking serious quetions about the dodgy donations, then the games a bogey for Better Together.
    Which is nice 😉

  21. scottish_skier
    Ignored
    says:

    The money still smells and smells bad.

    I must admit I’m puzzled as to why Mann wants to draw more people’s attention to the smell.

  22. The Man in the Jar
    Ignored
    says:

    This on the day MSPs hear evidence from Lord McClusky regarding Leveson. I wonder if this debacle will have any influence on the outcome.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22154686

  23. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    “Oh well, that’s fine then. Nothing to see here, move along now…”

    If you know different, we’re all ears.

  24. Fay-Yes
    Ignored
    says:

    SNP have now published correction and apology but i cant seem to link from my phone.
     
     

  25. Davy
    Ignored
    says:

    “Grahamski”,
                        Thats normal practice for ‘labour’ is’int, though I expect the taste of sour grapes is a bittie overpowering for you right now.
     
    Vote YES, Vote Scotland.
    Alba Gu snooker loopy!
     

  26. scottish_skier
    Ignored
    says:

    Oh well, that’s fine then. Nothing to see here, move along now…

    Seems something of a crowd is gathering.

    Someone in the crowd just shouted the words “Taylor’s money is dirty”.

    I wonder what’s going on.

  27. Another London Dividend
    Ignored
    says:

    Is BBC refusing to ask political questions in deference to Mrs Thatcher?
    That is the only explanation for not asking Douglas Alexander on Friday Morning GMS or Jim Murphy on Sunday politics show or Henry McLeish on TV last night or this morning on radio. OK Henry was on about football but interview could have been spliced and Vitol comment used on later report.  And BBC has a track record of editing remarks out of context.
    This £500,000 “dirty money” involving a donor whose company has alleged links to war criminals, financial kick backs, sanctions busting, dodgy dictatorships and tax avoidance schemes has all the ingredients for a Panorama type investigation on prime time television
    Yet the BBC in Scotland wouldn’t even ask simple questions to three Labour MPs who have either commented on the matter…. Alexander on previous Taylor donation…. McLeish on current donation… and the unctuous Jim Murphy who has appeared on NO campaign platforms.
      Why then a wall of silence from the BBC when I can only imagine the outrage if such a donation had been accepted by the Yes campaign from someone who can’t even vote in the referendum.
    This would be amplified by vitriolic letters from the usual suspects in the Scotsman and Herald letters pages but in this case no letters received have been printed.  
    Omerta is alive and well in the Scottish unionist establishment. 
     
     
     

  28. Another London Dividend
    Ignored
    says:

    So OK Herald misquoted Mann over current donation but perhaps Mann would like to comment on his double standards .
    He complains about Ian Taylor’s “dirty money” going to Tories but objects to any suggestion that he thinks similar donation handed to Alistair Darling is equally odious.

  29. ianbrotherhood
    Ignored
    says:

     
    Rather than instruct their journalists to investigate this sordid mess, BBC Scotland chooses to invite Edwina Currie onto Call Kaye at our expense (what’s the going rate for that harridan these days?) to gush about the silencing of Big Ben in a blatant boak-inducing wind-up.
    When, oh when will the penny finally drop – these people are taking the piss.

  30. Tattie-boggle
    Ignored
    says:

    I thought I had heard it all. have a read of this pish.
    http://scotspolitics.com/uncategorized1/ian-taylors-donation-is-irrelevant-to-the-indyref

  31. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    Fay: here’s the text. Looks like we called it exactly right. I predict the likelihood of Angus Robertson being “toast” as being 0.000%.

    “Correction – quote from John Mann MP in Herald
    Tue, 16/04/2013 – 08:16
    We were made aware last night that a quote attributed to Labour MP John Mann in Monday’s Herald newspaper in relation to Mr Ian Taylor’s donation to the No campaign was misattributed to him. We understand that this incorrect quote first appeared on the online version of the Sunday Times Scotland.

    This apparent quote was included in a party press release yesterday in good faith. The SNP withdrew it having learned of this misattribution, and wished to correct the record at the earliest opportunity last night.

    ENDS”

    http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/apr/correction-quote-john-mann-mp-herald

  32. rabb
    Ignored
    says:

    scottish_skier says:
    16 April, 2013 at 7:53 am

    The money still smells and smells bad.
    I must admit I’m puzzled as to why Mann wants to draw more people’s attention to the smell.
     
    Perhaps dear ed the leader of the ConLab party has had a quiet word in his ear?
     
    “John. I’ve had a word with our Tory leaders and they wish you to draw more attention to the dirty money scandal. That way we can get rid of those pointless Scots MP’s”
     
    Or something like that!

  33. rabb
    Ignored
    says:

    I’ve never had any great interest in politics throughout my life up until very recently.
    This is a real eye opener for me. Never have I seen such pent up hatred in a group of people as the Labour Party. THey are blinded by their own anger!

    I have always voted Labour on principle (no smart comments please!) but I’m now left with the feeling that I have been duped all these years?

    I’m now actually glad I voted SNP at the 2011 SGE

    New Labour are on the road to ruination if this continues.

    FFS Lamont, if your leading Scottish Labour then get them in check and back independence!!
     
    It’s the only way we will get the Labour party back from the Tory wannabes in London.

    Do it now or you’ve lost another voter FOR GOOD

  34. NorthBrit
    Ignored
    says:

    @Tattie-boggle
    This BBC article is (surprisingly) a dispassionate analysis of the position.
    Overall it suggests that the “median line” boundary created pre-devolution is the worst outcome that might be expected by an independent Scotland and cites an international lawyer who states that Scotland might do better.  At no point does it suggest that Scotland would do any worse.  
    In fact this is a very useful article to send the undecided to, if they want to understand the position.  
    If I were a cybernat I’d be linking to it like fun (and making a copy just in case it disappears).
     

  35. FreddieThreepwood
    Ignored
    says:

    First prominent indy story with a negative spin in the Herald for weeks and, as if by magic, the Gardham byline is beneath it. Like I said, he’s been on his holibags. Normal service has been resumed.
    But if the tenor and tone of its political coverage changes with the personnel in the newsroom on any given day it kind of begs the question … what’s the editor for?

  36. Peter A Bell
    Ignored
    says:

    Good point. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve email the SNP Press Office pointing out clumsy errors in their press releases – only to be ignored. A wee wake-up call may be a very good thing indeed.

  37. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    “Not directly connected to this story, but one of my links isn’t working – its a cash for questions link from the Telegraph:”

    There’s an archive version here:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20120330005634/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9168496/Cash-for-access-The-Tory-donor-who-profited-from-links-with-Libyan-rebels.html

  38. Marcia
    Ignored
    says:

    Still doesn’t answer this question. Is he on the electoral register in Scotland at the time of the donation? If not then according to the BT’s own rules, his donation should be capped to £500.
    It is nice to see Labour supporting people back up a Tory, but then again BT is a Tory funded campaign.  

  39. ianbrotherhood
    Ignored
    says:

    Just had a slap-the-forehead moment – is the silencing of Big Ben to avoid giving crowds a cue to burst into ‘Ding-Dong’? 

  40. tartanfever
    Ignored
    says:

    Does anyone have an update regarding the NC and how they are progressing ?
    Checked the website and it still has that message appearing on the front page.

  41. Robert Kerr
    Ignored
    says:

    @ianbrotherhood
    Brilliant !  Best yet.!
     
     

  42. MajorBloodnok
    Ignored
    says:

    @inbrotherhood
     
    lawl
     
    By the way did I hear correctly that the funeral is supposed to have a Falklands theme?   Would it therefore be bad taste to suggest putting Thatcher into a General Belgrano shaped coffin and have it sunk into the grave by a hearse disguised as HMS Conqueror?

  43. The Man in the Jar
    Ignored
    says:

    @MajorBloodnock
    They were to have a parade of the penguins in Westminster abbey. Unfortunately those vile cybernats hijacked the lorry taking the penguins south from Edinburgh zoo.

  44. FreddieThreepwood
    Ignored
    says:

    … or go with Frankie Boyle’s tweeted suggestion:
     
    “Seal Thatcher’s orifices, leave her in the sun, then remove her arsecork & let her whizz down the funeral route like a deflating balloon.”

  45. EdinScot
    Ignored
    says:

    Apologies if already been said but i see that MSP Joan McAlpine has an article on Viton and the Taylor donation on her page in the Daily Rubbish.  She highlights the point that Alistair Darling is refusing to hand back the money to Ian Taylor.
     
    Despite the Unionists best efforts, its good to see this scandal is reaching the parts of the electorate never before thought possible pre internet.  Good news.  The more this runs the more it will harm the NO camp.

  46. ianbrotherhood
    Ignored
    says:

     
    It was a caller to callKaye this morning who mentioned Big Ben/Ding-Dong, but I only half-heard it. It’s a fair point though. They didn’t turn off BB for the Queen’s old dear, or ‘The People’s Princess’.
     
    Ever so decent of the Met to confirm that they will allow people to people to turn their backs when the cortege passes. Have they decided what to do about people who stand there in respectful silence but just happen to be dressed as Munchkins?
     
    Perhaps we could have a sweep on how many Munchkins will be captured during the BBC coverage? I’m going for 350. (That’s individual Munchkins, not repeat shots of the same people.)

  47. Cath
    Ignored
    says:

    “I’ve never had any great interest in politics throughout my life up until very recently. This is a real eye opener for me. Never have I seen such pent up hatred in a group of people as the Labour Party. THey are blinded by their own anger!”
     
    Same here. I realised how negative Labour were being, and how they, the Tories and Lib Dems effectively ganged up on the SNP minority administration between 2007 and 2011, which was largely why I voted SNP in 2011. But I wasn’t very political then, or really paying attention. Since the outright victory in 2011 it’s been really eye-opening just how much Labour clearly despise the SNP, and despise being out of power.
     
    It’s actually making me revise the way I saw things 10 or 20 years ago. I strongly feel now we’ve been lied to at every turn, and a lot of very good people have been demonised or destroyed along the way. That realisation is currently making me very, very angry. As is a lot I’m hearing about blacklisting of people who dared be not-Labour supporters in Glasgow.

  48. proudscot
    Ignored
    says:

    I like the post by Doug Daniel suggesting that all we are now awaiting is a comment from Jackie Baillie (the Queen of Misquotes and Misleading Stats) saying how terrible it is when elected politicians knowingly mislead the public. Brilliant!

  49. Macart
    Ignored
    says:

    “I’ve never had any great interest in politics throughout my life up until very recently.”
     
    Ditto rabb and as soon as this referendum is done and dusted, (hopefully with a YES vote), I’ll be returning to a life of ignoring the buggers as best possible.
     
    Leave it to the kids to create the country they want 🙂

  50. Slaughterhouse
    Ignored
    says:

    Hi, Cath.
    Do you have any further info on those Labour blacklists? I’d like to check that out.

  51. Arbroath1320
    Ignored
    says:

     
    proudscot says:
     
     

    I like the post by Doug Daniel suggesting that all we are now awaiting is a comment from Jackie Baillie (the Queen of Misquotes and Misleading Stats) saying how terrible it is when elected politicians knowingly mislead the public. Brilliant!
     
    Think we’ll find her doing exactly this at the next FMQ’s!
     

  52. Boorach
    Ignored
    says:

    As she’s being cremated it would save a hell of a lot of money to just put her on ice till the next up-helly-a. Maybe the lads could create a scale model of the Belgrano for her just as a final touch of irony!

  53. ElaineS
    Ignored
    says:

    rabb says:
    16 April, 2013 at 9:44 am

    I’ve never had any great interest in politics throughout my life up until very recently.This is a real eye opener for me. Never have I seen such pent up hatred in a group of people as the Labour Party. THey are blinded by their own anger!
    I have always voted Labour on principle (no smart comments please!) but I’m now left with the feeling that I have been duped all these years?
     
    I’m ex Labour for exactly same reasons Rabb, I recognise not one single thing of the party I believed in for years. I think they are wrong to think other Labour voters still believe in them 100% and will buy any of their dirty tricks tactics/lies/distortions of truth and even worse, their blatent scaremongering to put fear into folk to vote No when they should for themselves and families sakes vote Yes.



Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.


  • About

    Wings Over Scotland is a (mainly) Scottish political media digest and monitor, which also offers its own commentary. (More)

    Stats: 6,609 Posts, 1,192,772 Comments

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • RSS Wings Over Scotland

  • A tall tale



↑ Top