Blogs Coffee House

Tory fingers point at Michael Fallon over Royal Mail debacle

1 April 2014

11:59 AM

1 April 2014

11:59 AM

It’s not just Vince Cable who is getting it in the neck today for the scathing report into the sell-off of the Royal Mail. Michael Fallon is copping his share of the blame too. Fallon has friends in high places; but he’s wound up one of his Tory colleagues:

‘Fallon is 62 years old this year, and is one of those safe-seat types. You know, the sort of guy who thinks ‘campaign’ is a fizzy white wine from France. His whole job was to sit on Vince Cable. But he’s been AWOL in recent months, and today the National Audit Office has holed Fallon below the waterline. This Royal Mail story will badly damage him.’

Now, now. The expected reshuffle is still months away, but Tories are already taking blunt instruments to each other. Delicious!


More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.



Show comments
  • Fergus McKenzie

    Nothing like a new outbreak of Tory Wars to get the juices flowing – it used to be easy to follow – Wet vs Dry but seems more complicated these days – for those of us now outside the party a Spectator guide to the various tribes and batlle lines would sell like hot cakes – Fraser / James you can have that idea for nothing if you like !!

  • Donafugata

    Fallon is the consummate sleazeball.

  • mariandavid

    Fascinating: Proves that ministers of the crown are utterly incapable of learning. Two decades ago the same fiasco was perpetuated on the taxpayer when British Railways was ‘privatised’. Of course it was not really – just a convenient way of ensuring that from then on private railways were perpetually subsidized by taxpayers and organized and run by Whitehall, with the only function of private industry being to take blame and make profit for investors. I would not be surprised to see the same happen with the Mail – endless screaming for additional subsidy by enterprises until the whole exercise costs the taxpayer twice as much as it would have done when still officially under public control

  • scampy1

    After an enquiry it will be carry on cottaging and dogging?

  • dado_trunking

    A faceless corporatocracy rake in the free dosh and Fallon is found steering the entire thing. You lot will never learn.

  • John Moss

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The stake we retained is now worth £700m more than at float. Also, Labour’s PFI disaster is costing us this much every three years. Where’s the NAO report in to that?

  • Des Demona

    What is it they are saying they are saving with bedroom tax (leaving aside thyem not mentioning the other costs of increasing rent arrears, homelessness, increased housing benefit costs as tenants with no smaller places to go have to move to the more expensive private sector, and suicides)
    300 odd million quid?
    Ironically pretty much the same as they gifted their city chums with this knock off deal.

    • GnosticBrian

      Peanuts compared to the £12,000,000,000 that Labour wasted on the failed NHS computer project.

      • Des Demona

        ”Whataboutery” that’s your response. Really? So you agree they gifted their city chums hundreds of millions of pounds but that’s okay because labour wasted money on a computer system?

        • GnosticBrian

          “Whataboutery”? I prefer to say: “Those who live in glass houses, shouldn’t throw stones”. Remind me, when Labour privatised Qinetic for £125m, why did they allow the civil servants involved to pocket £125m and how did it come about that the company, after privatisation, was worth TEN TIMES what the Governent received? All goes to show that the Government and Civil Service are not fit for purpose no matter which party is ostensibly in charge. Lambs to the slaughter.

          • Des Demona

            You mean this report

            ”Today’s report to Parliament concludes that the process to establish QinetiQ was well managed against a tight time scale and that the 2006 flotation was well executed. To date proceeds of £576 million, net of costs, have been generated for the Government, and the MoD still holds a 19 per cent shareholding in QinetiQ currently worth over £200 million.”

            The sale of QinetiQ – not the floatation. Where the managers got share incentives which later turned out to be worth 107 million because of the success of the incentives? That one?

            However, I happen to agree with you. Public assets should remain in public ownership. Including the £400 million profit organisation known as Royal Mail

            • GnosticBrian

              No, that was the whitewash – something that the previous Government used in industrial quantities. I’m surprised that you fell for it – are you, perchance, still looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

      • Mynydd

        You should add to the £1.4bn lost by this knock off deal, the Royal Mail debts added to the tax payers account. The cost of pensions, for generations to come, will be down to the tax payer, not the new owners of the Royal Mail

        • Des Demona

          Absolutely right – the pension deficit was kept by us, the taxpayers, so the city boys could make even more money.

    • Colonel Mustard

      “as tenants with no smaller places to go have to move to the more expensive private sector”

      There was a foam-flecked and ranting Labour MP on TV recently complaining that poor people forced to move because of the “bedroom tax” would end up having to pay higher rents to private landlords because in many cases there is no alternative accommodation available.

      Think about it. The much touted reason for occupants being forced to move in the first place is their inability to pay the additional charge. Why would anyone move out to avoid paying a higher rent only to pay an even higher rent in the private sector?

      Needless to say the interviewing BBC wazzock let the Labour wazzock get away with that logic failure.

      • Des Demona

        I’m afraid the logic failure is entirely yours. They don’t pay the additional rent in the private sector – that is paid by increased housing benefit.
        Perhaps you should think about it? Or at least find out about it.
        DOH!

        • Dougie

          Er, no. One of the justifications for ending the Spare Room Subsidy was to bring social housing tenants into line with tenants in the private sector.

          • Des Demona

            Good Grief
            The level of ignorance on the subject is quite appalling.
            Tenant X gets housing benefit to pay rent on a 2 bed council house. Two bed council house rent is much cheaper than 1 bed private rental.
            Tenant X gets HB cut because of extra bedroom and can’t afford rent.
            Tenant X has to move to 1 bed private rental in the absence of any 1 bed council houses, the private rental despite being more expensive is fully covered by housing benefit.
            Can you now see the stupidity of the policy?

            • Colonel Mustard

              Not convinced by that. There does not appear to be any clear criteria for housing benefit or the amounts paid anywhere in the public domain and it varies from council to council.

              You would have to give a specific and real example citing the actual amounts and reasoning of the “decision makers” to make the case for an increased cost to the taxpayer. Otherwise it is just assumption. Even then it might be eccentric to a specific council.

              • Des Demona

                If you are under the impression that private rental is comparable to council rental then you clearly haven’t got a Cluedo.

                http://www.channel4.com/news/bedroom-tax-will-cost-taxpayers-more

                Housing benefit is paid on a certain criteria very much in the public domain. If you can’t be bothered to find it that’s hardly my problem. But here you go anyway.

                https://www.gov.uk/housing-benefit/what-youll-get
                And here’s an example
                Two Bed council flat Gospel Oak N7 rent 600 pcm
                Cheapest 1 bed flat private rental on Right Move today £1408 pcm

                Anywhere in the country you care to name private rental will always be more expensive than council.

                The fact that you require me to give the ”reasoning of the decision makers” shows you don’t really have much of an argument.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  I don’t believe I argued anywhere that private rental is comparable to council rental. But thanks for confirming that lefties simply cannot argue without resorting to ad hominem. And to think you people invented “hate speech”!

                  That link is to a generic benefit calculator which works only for the specific circumstances of the person using it and even then there is no guarantee of the rate because each case is subject to local council policies and a local “decision maker”. I am not aware of any verified figures showing an overall cost vs benefit case for the policy. You argued that the policy will cost more not me. So prove it with some proper figures.

                  And your final paragraph is just typical leftist hyperbole. It was Labour that first introduced the policy principle for this anyway when they proposed cutting housing benefit for private sector rentals, now conveniently forgotten:-

                  Malcolm Wicks (Labour MP) in 2001:- “The under-occupation pilot encourages housing benefit recipients living in under- occupied social housing to move to smaller and cheaper accommodation in order to make more efficient use of housing stock. The pilot is expected to run until 2003. Estimated expenditure in 2000–01 was £17,335. This figure is subject to adjustment on receipt of audited claims from participating authorities.”

                  http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo011219/text/11219w19.htm

                  The present Government’s reforms are based on the bedroom requirement principles Labour itself introduced for social tenants of private landlords in their 2008 Housing Benefit Regulations:-

                  “Local Housing Allowance will be calculated on the number of rooms the claimant’s household needs not the number of rooms in the property or the amount of rent charged.

                  The number of bedrooms needed is based on the number, age and s** of people who live in the claimant’s household. The bedroom requirement is calculated as follows:

                  one bedroom for the claimant and partner (over 16 – including same s** couples)
                  one bedroom for other person aged 16 or over
                  one bedroom for any two children of the same s** aged under 16
                  one bedroom for any two children regardless of s** who are less than ten years old
                  one bedroom for any other child

                  If the claimant is single and aged under 35, the category of property considered appropriate is a bedroom in shared accommodation. This means a property in which the claimant has the exclusive use of one bedroom, but shares one or more of a kitchen, a bathroom, a toilet or a room suitable for living in.”

                  “Labour talk tough on housing benefit…Liam Byrne wrote in the Guardian: ‘ would scarcely have believed housing benefit alone is costing the UK over £20bn a year. That is simply too high’ (Guardian, 2 January 2012).

                  Despite 13 years of failure, Labour promised to cut Housing Benefit in 2010. Labour’s 2010 election manifesto, written by Ed Miliband, said, ‘Housing Benefit will be reformed to ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford’ (Labour Party 2010 Manifesto, April 2010, p. 23.)

                  Falling affordable housing under Labour: Under Labour, the total number of social rented housing stock fell by 421,000 units from March 1997 to March 2010 (Hansard, 20 June 2012, Col. 998WA).”

                  The current opposition to the “bedroom tax” is a cynically manufactured party political strategy which ignores previous Labour-sponsored regulations and policies.

                • Des Demona

                  What you fail to mention in all that is that the 2008 Housing benefit regulations were brought in to stop abuse by private landlords and to attempt to reign in the massive profits they were making out of the taxpayer.
                  Total cost of the 2001 pilot £17k.
                  You’re having a laugh.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  You are the one having a laugh. Point me to the documentary evidence of the stated purpose of the 2008 regulations as you have characterised them.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  “I was surprised to read Cllr Tickridge’s letter, (Northwich Guardian, January 29), describing changes to housing benefit to reflect under-occupancy (bedroom tax) as ‘callous and illogical’ bearing in mind its principles originated under the previous Labour Government.

                  “These came via a pilot project in 2001, changes to local housing allowance in 2008 and also Labour’s part in the recent changes to the housing register in Cheshire West, as follows: 1. Labour’s 2001 pilot said: “The under-occupation pilot encourages housing benefit recipients living in under-occupied social housing to move to smaller and cheaper accommodation in order to make more efficient use of housing stock”.

                  2. The present Government’s reforms are based on the bedroom requirement principles Labour itself introduced for social tenants of private landlords in 2008 Local Housing Allowance.

                  3. The recent changes to Cheshire West’s housing allocation policy which Graham Evans MP mentioned but Cllr Tickridge curiously omitted were agreed by a cross-party working group of Cheshire West Councillors i.e. both Conservative and Labour.

                  “I am aware the recent changes to housing benefit and the housing allocation policy have caused difficulties, as no doubt did the changes to local housing allowance in 2008 however as has been seen recently in this letters page, Labour and Cllr Tickridge appear to have selective amnesia when it comes to anything before 2010. The impact of the previous Labour Government and the legacy of the decisions they took still affect us all now in the difficult decisions Conservatives make for the country’s long term benefit.”

          • Mynydd

            Initially the government said the Spare Room Subsidy was to free up under occupied houses. Mr Ian Duncan Smith even went as far as giving numbers of spare rooms and how many families were in over crowded houses. It was only when the Bedroom Tax highlighted what it really meant, did they try to blame Labour policy of housing benefit for private rented houses.

            • Colonel Mustard

              See Labour’s 2008 Housing Benefit Regulations and 2001-2003 pilot schemes for discouraging under-occupied social housing.

      • Mynydd

        Yet again you are letting your hatred of the Labour party and the BBC over-ride all. It’s really simple, housing benefit pays both public or private rental irrespective of the actual amount.

        • Colonel Mustard

          Don’t get over heated. It’s just to balance your hatred of the Tories and Thatcher.

    • Colonel Mustard

      Strange Labour never raised these concerns when they were busy with their pilot schemes for discouraging the under-occupancy of social housing in 2001-2003 and introducing the Housing Benefit Regulations that set out exactly the same occupancy criteria in 2008.

      Labour = hypocrites with selective memory

      • Des Demona

        How is that hypocrisy or even relevant?
        And I thought you couldn’t find the housing benefit regulations. Well done.

        • Colonel Mustard

          Because Labour are now complaining about a policy that they originally introduced and a criteria for occupancy that they created. Hypocrisy.

          And none of your sneering Desi-boy. Away to the New Statesman with you. That rag is more your habitat.

          • Des Demona

            Labour did not introduce a policy of cutting housing benefit to social housing tenants who had a spare room. Where did you get that from?
            Hey, we get a lot of you Speccies coming over I’m just returning the compliment. Don’t you like hearing anything other than your own echo chamber?
            Think I might stick around. A dissenting voice is good for debate rather than a circle jerk.

            • Colonel Mustard

              The policy is rooted in Labour’s 2006 and 2008 housing reforms. They defined the criteria for occupancy.

              • Des Demona

                Oh dear me. defining the criteria for occupancy and using that to punish the most vulnerable in society are two completely different things.

  • Shazza

    BTW, although I think Vince Cable is useless and incompetent, how much money did Calamity Brown cost us when he sold the gold off at rock bottom prices?
    The Labour Party excels in selective amnesia. Again.

    • SG

      Yeah, no party is worth a vote given their record.

      This really is a scandal though. Everyone with half a brain was saying before it was undervalued. All except the advisers who pocketed billions as it soared.

    • Des Demona

      Where was the Labour Party mentioned in the article? I forget. Must be that amnesia I hear about.

      • Shazza

        A timely reminder to the good readers of the Spectator of the collective amnesia of the Party of Mass Destruction –

        Forgot how Brown ruined private pensions
        Forgot how they trashed the economy
        Forgot how they opened the borders to mass third world immigration
        Forgot how they massively (and expensively) enlarged the public sector
        Forgot how they sold the gold at rock bottom prices
        Forgot how their rash immigration policies led to massive overburdening of schools, hospitals, housing, roads, etc.
        Forgot how by implementing the Human Rights Act we now cannot deport foreign terrorists, criminals, etc.

        I will never, ever forget to remind said good readers of the disastrous, misrule of 1997-2010.

        • Des Demona

          YAY a list!
          TORY TORY TORY
          Upvotes please

          • Shazza

            Puerile.
            The Loony Left always resort to ad hominem attacks because the paucity of their arguments merely reflects the abject failure of their policies.

            • Des Demona

              Do you know what an ad hominem attack is?
              I could parse every single one of your supposed facts – the biggest lie being ”they trashed the economy” so I’ll just do that one.
              How come the coalition has borrowed more in their 4 years in power than Labour did over their entire period of Government – as reported in these very pages?
              How come debt to GDP has doubled?
              How come the economy has flatlined for 4 years after growth prior to the coalition?

              • Colonel Mustard

                Away back to the New Statesman Desi-boy. None of your Labour lies here.

                • Des Demona

                  Lie? I’m referring to your own Fraser Nelson’s figures?

                • Colonel Mustard

                  He’s not my Fraser Nelson Desi-boy. And we all know about figures.

                  You people have been bleating about cuts for 4 years. Now you are bleating about borrowing. Liam Byrne told us in 2010 that “the money is all gone”.

                  You lot are just cynical chancers of the “Heads we win, tails you lose” variety.

                • Des Demona

                  Lol
                  Okay so you disown the editor – fair enough there are none so blind as cannot see. And now you have to rely on a joke made by Liam Byrne as your economic argument?
                  Oh dear me.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Not a joke that future generations will find funny. If Labour don’t manage to create the Orwellian single party state they aspire to history will judge them harshly.

                • Shazza

                  Thank you Colonel – I should have put Liam Byrne’s comment in my ‘Forgot’ list!

                • Des Demona

                  ” We all know about figures”?
                  That’s your response? LOL
                  Yet you are happy to quote ”figures” when it suits you?
                  Pretty much on a par with the joker who allegedly gave me ”chapter and verse” but now suddenly appears as ”Guest”
                  Possibly because he /she realised that after the QE gaffe they were chapter and verse of Biff and Chips.

                • Shazza

                  Well said Colonel.

                • Nicholas chuzzlewit

                  Well said Colonel. Nevertheless I have given the leftist idiot chapter and verse.

                • Des Demona

                  Tally Ho! Don’t worry chaps, I’ll see orf Johnny Oik with the power of my Tory facts!
                  Ummmm… try getting them right.

              • Shazza

                Strange how you edited your first reply ‘YAY’ etc. after I had responded.

                • Des Demona

                  no I edited it before you responded.

                • Shazza

                  Rubbish – I know what I responded to –
                  TORY TORY TORY

                  hence my ‘ad hominem’ response. Taunts belong in the playground and yes, I am certainly a Tory. Nothing loony in that.

                • Des Demona

                  Only because you thought I was saying TORY TORY TORY to you.
                  Did you not read my previous post, where shouting USA got cheers?
                  I was rather ironically requesting upvotes by cheering on the team.
                  I then changed my mind to make the meaning more obvious. Your reply wasn’t shown.
                  Ok?

                • Shazza

                  Rubbish, there was quite a time lapse.
                  You are just doing what I have said – collective amnesia.
                  We will never forget the destruction Labour wrought on this country 1997-2010.
                  Do I need to repeat it again?

                • Des Demona

                  Frankly I don’t really care what you believe. That’s what happened. You think I’m bothered by writing TORY TORY TORY rather than TORY GOOD LABOUR BAD? Seriously?

                  ”We will never forget the destruction Labour wrought on this country 1997-2010.”

                  You mean the 30 odd consecutive quarters of growth?

                • Shazza

                  Never forget –

                  In 1997 Labour inherited a solvent, first world country and in 2010 bequeathed the Coalition a near bankrupt, 3rd world state.

                  The financial wreck can be remedied but the suicidal importation of an ideology that is hellbent on converting us to their primitive creed, can never be ameliorated.

                  That is Labour’s legacy.

                • Tim Reed

                  This is perhaps the best, and most scathing, take on New Labour’s reign of terror…

                  http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100240679/exclusive-labour-1997-2010-was-the-worst-government-ever-and-this-is-why/

                • Shazza

                  Thanks for link – he really nails it.

                • Des Demona

                  Ah he clearly speaks with all the authority of a novelist and travel writer. Well why didn’t you say so. Of course he has the defining take on the last Government!

                • Mynydd

                  When Labour left office GDP growth was 1% the GDP growth for the last Conservative quarter growth was 0.7%. Some improvement that.

                • Shazza

                  See Tim Reed’s Telegraph link below.

                  Read it and weep.

                • Des Demona

                  The complete idiocy of that statement requires no further comment.

                • Tim Reed

                  “30 odd consecutive quarters of growth”

                  …built on a mountain of debt, that came crashing down with the first tremor. We’re all paying for that ‘success’ now, aren’t we.

                • Mynydd

                  As already been said Mr Cameron as added to the National Debt more in 4 years than Mr Blair/Brown added in 13 years.

                • Alexsandr

                  do you not understand the concept of a lag. government does something, effect is years down the line.

                  anyway, if the coalition had really made the cuts needed to balance the books earlier you would have been yelling too deep too fast.

                • Tim Reed

                  With Labour’s PFI legacy, that lag will last for decades.

                • Des Demona

                  Ummmm PFI was introduced to the UK in 1992 by John Major.
                  Just sayin’

                • Des Demona

                  A 4 year lag!!!!!
                  I’ve heard it all now. The stagnation and borrowing since 2009 is due to Osborne’s ideological welding to austerity.
                  He managed to lose the much vaunted AAA rating that his reputation was supposed to be staked on.
                  He managed to preside over the longest output stagnation in living memory.
                  He managed to borrow more in 4 years than Labour did in 13.
                  He managed to take inherited growth and turn it into recession. The economy is still 1.4 % smaller than it was in 2008.
                  He managed to give his rich chums a massive tax cut while at the same time presided over the longest period of wage restraint and declining living standards in living memory for most of us.
                  yeah we can all make lists.

              • Tim Reed

                “I could parse every single one of your supposed facts”

                Not truthfully or effectively, you couldn’t.

                • Des Demona

                  Like Shazza and Col Mustard you mean?
                  Nothing but a casual disregard of Fraser Nelson’s figures, a ‘get back to the new Statesman, and a ‘you lot are just cynical chancers”
                  That passes for debate around here does it?

                • Colonel Mustard

                  No debate intended. ‘Debating lefty’ is an oxymoron. I am into reciprocation here.

              • Nicholas chuzzlewit

                Well I think this dissembling leftist rubbish needs to be dealt with. Labour bequeathed a structural deficit of £167 billion and an economy that had contracted by 7.4% because a huge credit boom had come home to roost. It did not all start in America it was a UK recession. Brown spent and borrowed at the top of the economic cycle leaving the UK with no significant financial resources to deal with the recession hence it’s length. The contraction of the economy meant that less tax revenues were coming in and unless massive cuts in public expenditure were undertaken, the only alternative was to borrow more. I can only imagine the screaming from the left if such cuts had been made. Much of the increased borrowing has been required to cover interest on the debt run up by Brown,. Much of the new borrowing is a result of quantitative easing, a programme initiated by Labour. £400 million of QE in fact, most of which will be converted to zero coupon perpetual debt which will never have to be repaid. It’s effects are difficult to quantify and will impact more on pensioners and savers than Labours client state. Suffice to say, austerity has been effective and we now have record employment and the fastest growing economy on the west. You may like to contrast our performance with that of France who actually followed the lunatic programme advocated by Ed Balls. Incidentally, the implication that borrowing would not have risen had Labour won the election in 2010 is as risible as the rest of your ridiculous post.

                • Des Demona

                  LOL
                  A UK recession? So this UK recession then infected most of the rest of the industrialised world?
                  Ummmmm the QE figures are not included in the borrowing. Frankly if you don’t know that then I can’t be bothered answering the rest.

                • MirthaTidville

                  good, your wise words we could all very well do without

                • Des Demona

                  Yet the nonsense figures quoted by ”Guest” you can do with?
                  I see where you’re coming from. Good luck with that.

                • Mynydd

                  Rubbish

                • Nicholas chuzzlewit

                  Said the Labour Party Toad who knows nothing of economics or business. Utter left wing filth.

                • Des Demona

                  Mmmmmmm interesting – according to another commentator here –
                  ”The Loony Left always resort to ad hominem attacks because the paucity of their arguments merely reflects the abject failure of their policies.”
                  So I guess that includes the loony right also?

        • Mynydd

          Don’t change the subject. The article is about the government under selling the Royal Mail to the tune of hundreds of million of pound.

        • Donafugata

          Come on Shazza, I usually agree with you and give you a recommend.

          No-one has forgotten the devastation of Labour but the Tories are not immune from corruption.

          • Shazza

            Agree on corruption, they are all guilty.

            I cannot make up my mind about Labour’s disastrous rule – was it incompetence, hubris or deliberate nation changing policy’ drunk with their own power or what made them do it? Surely no political party would deliberately sabotage their own country like that, would they?
            It genuinely perplexes me.

            • Donafugata

              It is a mystery why any party would vandalise the country but one thing is for sure, Labour cannot be trusted ever again.

    • ButcombeMan

      Uncle Vince affects are air of gravitas and all seeing wisdom. He has surely been play acting for years, sadly some people have been fooled by it. Even some of his old pals in the Labour Party. He as even been spoken of as a Minister, maybe Chancellor in a Lib/Lab government. Heaven forbid.

      It has been plain for a while that he does not possess, what is referred to by the Permanent Secretaries, as a first class brain. If he does he keeps it deeply hidden. Like an old turkey, he was always ripe for the plucking, ego in front of common sense. Remember those two female reporters who mugged him because of his ego?

      Those in the city who did the plucking, must have rubbed their hands with glee

  • Julian Kavanagh

    You clearly didn’t hear his audition to be a cabinet minister on the Today programme….an audition that he passed. He stuck to his guns, got his points across and exposed Jim Naughtie as someone who knows nothing about how IPOs actually work.

    • Mynydd

      I heard Mr Fallon say on the Today programme and later on Sky News that the Royal Mail was a loss maker, whereas the latest accounts show they made a profit of £400m. Heads should roll.

      • Des Demona

        Indeed. I also heard Pinocchio Fallon somehow turn a huge profit into a loss.

  • alabenn

    Are you seriously suggesting the Tories will hammer Fallon and give cover to the sainted Vince.
    It is April Fools Day, and you got this article out with one minute to spare. you are kidding.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here