No wonder lawyers would be well advised to post using pseudonyms such as
my own one.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/tweeting-solicitor-avoids-suspension-but-must-attend-antisemitism-course/5124105.article
A solicitor found to have made social media posts that were antisemitic or >otherwise offensive or inappropriate has given a suspended suspension from >practice.
unquote
How bad could they have been? The full judgment is not yet published and
I wonder whether he put up a plausible defence citing his right to freedom
of speech.
quote
The SDT heard the six disputed tweets had ‘various themes repeated’ >through them including ‘accusations directed at prominent British Jews
that they have been disloyal to Britain’, ‘politicians, journalists
and others are paid by Israel and Zionists’, tropes of Jewish genocide
and conspiracy tropes ‘such as Twitter being run by Jews or Jews being
the cause of 9/11’.
unquote
I wonder which were the worst tweets he produced? Surely not the one which >said that the Chief Rabbi's loyalty was to Israel and not to Britain?
Surely not when he said that a holocaust was taking place in Gaza?
The Gnasher Jew website seems to be the place to see some of the tweets >quoted.
https://gnasherjew.com/solicitor-under-investigation-for-hateful-antisemitic-communications/
On 01/08/2025 in message <mf4kasFt5f0U1@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
No wonder lawyers would be well advised to post using pseudonyms such as
my own one.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/tweeting-solicitor-avoids-suspension-but-must-attend-antisemitism-course/5124105.article
A solicitor found to have made social media posts that were antisemitic or >> otherwise offensive or inappropriate has given a suspended suspension from >> practice.
unquote
How bad could they have been? The full judgment is not yet published and
I wonder whether he put up a plausible defence citing his right to freedom >> of speech.
quote
The SDT heard the six disputed tweets had ‘various themes repeated’
through them including ‘accusations directed at prominent British Jews
that they have been disloyal to Britain’, ‘politicians, journalists
and others are paid by Israel and Zionists’, tropes of Jewish genocide
and conspiracy tropes ‘such as Twitter being run by Jews or Jews being
the cause of 9/11’.
unquote
I wonder which were the worst tweets he produced? Surely not the one which >> said that the Chief Rabbi's loyalty was to Israel and not to Britain?
Surely not when he said that a holocaust was taking place in Gaza?
The Gnasher Jew website seems to be the place to see some of the tweets
quoted.
https://gnasherjew.com/solicitor-under-investigation-for-hateful-antisemitic-communications/
‘politicians, journalists and others are paid by Israel and Zionists’,
is interesting. Where does being a member of the Labour/Conservative
Friends of Israel fit in there? It seems to involve free visits from what
I have seen reported.
No wonder lawyers would be well advised to post using pseudonyms such as my own one.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/tweeting-solicitor-avoids-suspension-but-must-attend-antisemitism-course/5124105.article
A solicitor found to have made social media posts that were antisemitic or otherwise
offensive or inappropriate has given a suspended suspension from practice.
unquote
How bad could they have been? The full judgment is not yet published and I wonder
whether he put up a plausible defence citing his right to freedom of speech.
quote
The SDT heard the six disputed tweets had 'various themes repeated' through them
including 'accusations directed at prominent British Jews that they have been disloyal
to Britain', 'politicians, journalists and others are paid by Israel and Zionists',
tropes of Jewish genocide and conspiracy tropes 'such as Twitter being run by Jews or
Jews being the cause of 9/11'.
unquote
I wonder which were the worst tweets he produced? Surely not the one which said that
the Chief Rabbi's loyalty was to Israel and not to Britain? Surely not when he said
that a holocaust was taking place in Gaza?
The Gnasher Jew website seems to be the place to see some of the tweets quoted.
https://gnasherjew.com/solicitor-under-investigation-for-hateful-antisemitic-communications/
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:mf4kasFt5f0U1@mid.individual.net...
No wonder lawyers would be well advised to post using pseudonyms such as my own one.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/tweeting-solicitor-avoids-suspension-but-must-attend-antisemitism-course/5124105.article
A solicitor found to have made social media posts that were antisemitic or otherwise
offensive or inappropriate has given a suspended suspension from practice. >>
unquote
How bad could they have been? The full judgment is not yet published and I wonder
whether he put up a plausible defence citing his right to freedom of speech. >>
quote
The SDT heard the six disputed tweets had 'various themes repeated' through them
including 'accusations directed at prominent British Jews that they have been disloyal
to Britain', 'politicians, journalists and others are paid by Israel and Zionists',
tropes of Jewish genocide and conspiracy tropes 'such as Twitter being run by Jews or
Jews being the cause of 9/11'.
unquote
I wonder which were the worst tweets he produced? Surely not the one which said that
the Chief Rabbi's loyalty was to Israel and not to Britain? Surely not when he said
that a holocaust was taking place in Gaza?
The Gnasher Jew website seems to be the place to see some of the tweets quoted.
https://gnasherjew.com/solicitor-under-investigation-for-hateful-antisemitic-communications/
As a recognised member of a professional body, Sarfaz has an over-riding
duty not to bring that body into disrepute; by either word or deed. It
really is as simple as that
If anything he says or does, which comes to public attention, could cause concern to at least some other members of his profession*, or to potential clients of at least some other members of his profession*, then he should definitely be made to see the error of his ways.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:mf4kasFt5f0U1@mid.individual.net...
No wonder lawyers would be well advised to post using pseudonyms such as my >> own one.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/tweeting-solicitor-avoids-suspension-but-must-attend-antisemitism-course/5124105.article
A solicitor found to have made social media posts that were antisemitic or >> otherwise
offensive or inappropriate has given a suspended suspension from practice. >>
unquote
How bad could they have been? The full judgment is not yet published and I >> wonder
whether he put up a plausible defence citing his right to freedom of speech. >>
quote
The SDT heard the six disputed tweets had 'various themes repeated' through >> them
including 'accusations directed at prominent British Jews that they have been
disloyal
to Britain', 'politicians, journalists and others are paid by Israel and
Zionists',
tropes of Jewish genocide and conspiracy tropes 'such as Twitter being run by
Jews or
Jews being the cause of 9/11'.
unquote
I wonder which were the worst tweets he produced? Surely not the one which >> said that
the Chief Rabbi's loyalty was to Israel and not to Britain? Surely not when >> he said
that a holocaust was taking place in Gaza?
The Gnasher Jew website seems to be the place to see some of the tweets quoted.
https://gnasherjew.com/solicitor-under-investigation-for-hateful-antisemitic-communications/
As a recognised member of a professional body, Sarfaz has an over-riding
duty not to bring that body into disrepute; by either word or deed. It
really is as simple as that
If anything he says or does, which comes to public attention, could cause concern to at least some other members of his profession*, or to potential clients of at least some other members of his profession*, then he should definitely be made to see the error of his ways.
bb
On 01/08/2025 22:17, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mf4kasFt5f0U1@mid.individual.net...
No wonder lawyers would be well advised to post using pseudonyms such as my own one.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/tweeting-solicitor-avoids-suspension-but-must-attend-antisemitism-course/5124105.article
A solicitor found to have made social media posts that were antisemitic or otherwise
offensive or inappropriate has given a suspended suspension from practice. >>>
unquote
How bad could they have been? The full judgment is not yet published and I wonder
whether he put up a plausible defence citing his right to freedom of speech.
quote
The SDT heard the six disputed tweets had 'various themes repeated' through them
including 'accusations directed at prominent British Jews that they have been
disloyal
to Britain', 'politicians, journalists and others are paid by Israel and Zionists',
tropes of Jewish genocide and conspiracy tropes 'such as Twitter being run by Jews or
Jews being the cause of 9/11'.
unquote
I wonder which were the worst tweets he produced? Surely not the one which said that
the Chief Rabbi's loyalty was to Israel and not to Britain? Surely not when he said
that a holocaust was taking place in Gaza?
The Gnasher Jew website seems to be the place to see some of the tweets quoted.
https://gnasherjew.com/solicitor-under-investigation-for-hateful-antisemitic-communications/
As a recognised member of a professional body, Sarfaz has an over-riding
duty not to bring that body into disrepute; by either word or deed. It
really is as simple as that
If anything he says or does, which comes to public attention, could cause
concern to at least some other members of his profession*, or to potential >> clients of at least some other members of his profession*, then he should
definitely be made to see the error of his ways.
Which is why he should have had the sense to post with an anonymous name that could not
be traced back to him.
Interesting to compare this with the case of Mark Lewis, a pro-Israel solicitor who has
pursued many cases against alleged antisemites. Fined, but it was paid for by his many
loyal supporters. No requirement to have an anger management course.
https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/sra-on-wrong-side-of-history-says-lewis-after-twitter-fine
2018
The Jewish solicitor fined for posting offensive messages on social media in response
to alleged neo-Nazi trolls has accused the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) of
being "on the wrong side of history".
Renowned media lawyer Mark Lewis was fined 2,500 by the Solicitors Disciplinary
Tribunal after it upheld an allegation that, over an 18-month period, "he used his
Twitter account which publicly identified him as a solicitor to publicly post offensive
and profane communications".
Mr Lewis said in a statement: "The SRA was faced with a choice between Holocaust
denying neo-Nazis and a Jewish lawyer. It chose to side with the neo-Nazis. It is on
the wrong side of history. It is the Holocaust revisionists who are celebrating the
verdict. That tells you all that you need to know."
An SRA spokesman declined to respond to his comments.
Mr Lewis was open about his approach of responding aggressively to threatening tweets.
One he sent said: "Happy to celebrate your death too. I have not got time for your
hideous evil."
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:mf4rgaFua98U1@mid.individual.net...
On 01/08/2025 22:17, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mf4kasFt5f0U1@mid.individual.net...
No wonder lawyers would be well advised to post using pseudonyms such as my own one.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/tweeting-solicitor-avoids-suspension-but-must-attend-antisemitism-course/5124105.article
A solicitor found to have made social media posts that were antisemitic or otherwise
offensive or inappropriate has given a suspended suspension from practice. >>>>
unquote
How bad could they have been? The full judgment is not yet published and I wonder
whether he put up a plausible defence citing his right to freedom of speech.
quote
The SDT heard the six disputed tweets had 'various themes repeated' through them
including 'accusations directed at prominent British Jews that they have been
disloyal
to Britain', 'politicians, journalists and others are paid by Israel and Zionists',
tropes of Jewish genocide and conspiracy tropes 'such as Twitter being run by Jews
or
Jews being the cause of 9/11'.
unquote
I wonder which were the worst tweets he produced? Surely not the one which said that
the Chief Rabbi's loyalty was to Israel and not to Britain? Surely not when he said
that a holocaust was taking place in Gaza?
The Gnasher Jew website seems to be the place to see some of the tweets quoted.
https://gnasherjew.com/solicitor-under-investigation-for-hateful-antisemitic-communications/
As a recognised member of a professional body, Sarfaz has an over-riding >>> duty not to bring that body into disrepute; by either word or deed. It
really is as simple as that
If anything he says or does, which comes to public attention, could cause >>> concern to at least some other members of his profession*, or to potential >>> clients of at least some other members of his profession*, then he should >>> definitely be made to see the error of his ways.
Which is why he should have had the sense to post with an anonymous name that could
not be traced back to him.
Indeed.
It seems as if social media scrapes are now running "trouser problems" a close second,
when it comes to common sense flying straight out of the window.
Interesting to compare this with the case of Mark Lewis, a pro-Israel solicitor who
has pursued many cases against alleged antisemites. Fined, but it was paid for by his
many loyal supporters. No requirement to have an anger management course.
https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/sra-on-wrong-side-of-history-says-lewis-after-twitter-fine
2018
The Jewish solicitor fined for posting offensive messages on social media in response
to alleged neo-Nazi trolls has accused the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) of
being "on the wrong side of history".
Renowned media lawyer Mark Lewis was fined 2,500 by the Solicitors Disciplinary
Tribunal after it upheld an allegation that, over an 18-month period, "he used his
Twitter account which publicly identified him as a solicitor to publicly post
offensive and profane communications".
Mr Lewis said in a statement: "The SRA was faced with a choice between Holocaust
denying neo-Nazis and a Jewish lawyer. It chose to side with the neo-Nazis. It is on
the wrong side of history. It is the Holocaust revisionists who are celebrating the
verdict. That tells you all that you need to know."
An SRA spokesman declined to respond to his comments.
Mr Lewis was open about his approach of responding aggressively to threatening tweets.
One he sent said: "Happy to celebrate your death too. I have not got time for your
hideous evil."
And yet he seems to be such a sensible chap to judge by his website
https://patronlaw.co.uk/bio/mark-lewis/
I think it best to leave it at that.
bb
Injection wearing off?
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:mf4rgaFua98U1@mid.individual.net...
Mr Lewis was open about his approach of responding aggressively to
threatening tweets. One he sent said: "Happy to celebrate your death
too. I have not got time for your hideous evil."
And yet he seems to be such a sensible chap to judge by his website
https://patronlaw.co.uk/bio/mark-lewis/
I think it best to leave it at that.
On 2025-08-01, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mf4rgaFua98U1@mid.individual.net...
Mr Lewis was open about his approach of responding aggressively to
threatening tweets. One he sent said: "Happy to celebrate your death
too. I have not got time for your hideous evil."
And yet he seems to be such a sensible chap to judge by his website
https://patronlaw.co.uk/bio/mark-lewis/
I think it best to leave it at that.
"successfully representing Food Blogger, Jack Monroe against Katie
Hopkins"
That buys him a lot of credit in my book. And him not even a barrister.
On 02/08/2025 00:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-08-01, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mf4rgaFua98U1@mid.individual.net...
Mr Lewis was open about his approach of responding aggressively to
threatening tweets. One he sent said: "Happy to celebrate your death
too. I have not got time for your hideous evil."
And yet he seems to be such a sensible chap to judge by his website
https://patronlaw.co.uk/bio/mark-lewis/
I think it best to leave it at that.
"successfully representing Food Blogger, Jack Monroe against Katie
Hopkins"
That buys him a lot of credit in my book. And him not even a barrister.
It buys him no credit at all in my book - maybe my book is slimmer than yours.
Any lawyer can take on a slam dunk winner of a case and look good when
your client wins and you rake in loads of costs for your firm.
However, Keir Starmer was nice enough to help Helen Steel when she was
sued by McDonalds for libelling their disgusting food, and he acted pro
bono. That bought him a lot of credit in my book. That was before Keir
was attacked by zombies and turned into a genocide supporting bastard.
The debit items that should be registered against Mr Lewis involve his tireless crusade against people whom he regarded as antisemites.
He represented Richard Millett in Millett v Corbyn https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/1848.html
He represented John Ware in Ware v French https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/384.html
He claimed that he and his wife had to emigrate to Israel because of all
the antisemitism in the UK which he blamed on Jeremy Corbyn.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-45201412 https://www.timesofisrael.com/europe-is-finished-leading-lawyer-says-as- he-leaves-uk-for-israel/
Oddly, having left for Israel in a fanfare of trumpets, he seems to have subsequently returned to the UK to resume his work as a lawyer. Wonders
will never cease for the wandering Jew.
On 02/08/2025 00:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-08-01, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mf4rgaFua98U1@mid.individual.net...
Mr Lewis was open about his approach of responding aggressively to
threatening tweets. One he sent said: "Happy to celebrate your death
too. I have not got time for your hideous evil."
And yet he seems to be such a sensible chap to judge by his website
https://patronlaw.co.uk/bio/mark-lewis/
I think it best to leave it at that.
"successfully representing Food Blogger, Jack Monroe against Katie
Hopkins"
That buys him a lot of credit in my book. And him not even a barrister.
It buys him no credit at all in my book - maybe my book is slimmer than yours.
Any lawyer can take on a slam dunk winner of a case and look good when
your client wins and you rake in loads of costs for your firm.
However, Keir Starmer was nice enough to help Helen Steel when she was
sued by McDonalds for libelling their disgusting food, and he acted pro
bono. That bought him a lot of credit in my book. That was before Keir
was attacked by zombies and turned into a genocide supporting bastard.
The debit items that should be registered against Mr Lewis involve his tireless crusade against people whom he regarded as antisemites.
He represented Richard Millett in Millett v Corbyn https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/1848.html
He represented John Ware in Ware v French https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/384.html
He claimed that he and his wife had to emigrate to Israel because of all
the antisemitism in the UK which he blamed on Jeremy Corbyn.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-45201412 https://www.timesofisrael.com/europe-is-finished-leading-lawyer-says-as-he-leaves-uk-for-israel/
Oddly, having left for Israel in a fanfare of trumpets, he seems to have subsequently returned to the UK to resume his work as a lawyer. Wonders
will never cease for the wandering Jew.
No wonder lawyers would be well advised to post using pseudonyms such as
my own one.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/tweeting-solicitor-avoids-suspension- but-must-attend-antisemitism-course/5124105.article
A solicitor found to have made social media posts that were antisemitic
or otherwise offensive or inappropriate has given a suspended suspension
from practice.
On 02/08/2025 00:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-08-01, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mf4rgaFua98U1@mid.individual.net...
Mr Lewis was open about his approach of responding aggressively to
threatening tweets. One he sent said: "Happy to celebrate your death
too. I have not got time for your hideous evil."
And yet he seems to be such a sensible chap to judge by his website
https://patronlaw.co.uk/bio/mark-lewis/
I think it best to leave it at that.
"successfully representing Food Blogger, Jack Monroe against Katie
Hopkins"
That buys him a lot of credit in my book. And him not even a barrister.
It buys him no credit at all in my book - maybe my book is slimmer than yours.
On 2 Aug 2025 at 11:42:18 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 02/08/2025 00:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-08-01, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mf4rgaFua98U1@mid.individual.net...
Mr Lewis was open about his approach of responding aggressively to
threatening tweets. One he sent said: "Happy to celebrate your death >>>>> too. I have not got time for your hideous evil."
And yet he seems to be such a sensible chap to judge by his website
https://patronlaw.co.uk/bio/mark-lewis/
I think it best to leave it at that.
"successfully representing Food Blogger, Jack Monroe against Katie
Hopkins"
That buys him a lot of credit in my book. And him not even a barrister.
It buys him no credit at all in my book - maybe my book is slimmer than
yours.
Any lawyer can take on a slam dunk winner of a case and look good when
your client wins and you rake in loads of costs for your firm.
I think that's a bit unfair; it was quite an important judgment re social media.
However, Keir Starmer was nice enough to help Helen Steel when she was
sued by McDonalds for libelling their disgusting food, and he acted pro
bono. That bought him a lot of credit in my book. That was before Keir
was attacked by zombies and turned into a genocide supporting bastard.
The debit items that should be registered against Mr Lewis involve his
tireless crusade against people whom he regarded as antisemites.
Agree on this!
He represented Richard Millett in Millett v Corbyn
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/1848.html
He represented John Ware in Ware v French
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/384.html
He claimed that he and his wife had to emigrate to Israel because of all
the antisemitism in the UK which he blamed on Jeremy Corbyn.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-45201412
https://www.timesofisrael.com/europe-is-finished-leading-lawyer-says-as-he-leaves-uk-for-israel/
Oddly, having left for Israel in a fanfare of trumpets, he seems to have
subsequently returned to the UK to resume his work as a lawyer. Wonders
will never cease for the wandering Jew.
I suppose he really only *had* to leave while Corbyn was actually Prime Minister?
On 02/08/2025 13:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Aug 2025 at 11:42:18 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 02/08/2025 00:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-08-01, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mf4rgaFua98U1@mid.individual.net...
Mr Lewis was open about his approach of responding aggressively to >>>>>> threatening tweets. One he sent said: "Happy to celebrate your death >>>>>> too. I have not got time for your hideous evil."
And yet he seems to be such a sensible chap to judge by his website
https://patronlaw.co.uk/bio/mark-lewis/
I think it best to leave it at that.
"successfully representing Food Blogger, Jack Monroe against Katie
Hopkins"
That buys him a lot of credit in my book. And him not even a barrister. >>>>
It buys him no credit at all in my book - maybe my book is slimmer than
yours.
Any lawyer can take on a slam dunk winner of a case and look good when
your client wins and you rake in loads of costs for your firm.
I think that's a bit unfair; it was quite an important judgment re social
media.
It was quite an important judgment but any defamation solicitor would
have been happy to handle it on a no win no fee basis, and presumably he managed to get in ahead of Carter Ruck.
I assume he did a competent job but, realistically, the hardest work is
done by the specialist defamation barristers.
Hopkins was ordered to make an interim payment of costs of 107k and I
bet the final sum would have been double that. A nice case for a law
firm. Very low risk. Hopkins had fucked up big time. Monroe deserved her
24k damages. I hope her solicitor didn't have to deduct any costs from that.
However, Keir Starmer was nice enough to help Helen Steel when she was
sued by McDonalds for libelling their disgusting food, and he acted pro
bono. That bought him a lot of credit in my book. That was before Keir
was attacked by zombies and turned into a genocide supporting bastard.
The debit items that should be registered against Mr Lewis involve his
tireless crusade against people whom he regarded as antisemites.
Agree on this!
He represented Richard Millett in Millett v Corbyn
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/1848.html
He represented John Ware in Ware v French
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/384.html
He claimed that he and his wife had to emigrate to Israel because of all >>> the antisemitism in the UK which he blamed on Jeremy Corbyn.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-45201412
https://www.timesofisrael.com/europe-is-finished-leading-lawyer-says-as-he-leaves-uk-for-israel/
Oddly, having left for Israel in a fanfare of trumpets, he seems to have >>> subsequently returned to the UK to resume his work as a lawyer. Wonders
will never cease for the wandering Jew.
I suppose he really only *had* to leave while Corbyn was actually Prime
Minister?
I think Mr Lewis did his very best to harm Labour's electoral prospects
and ensure that Corbyn would be replaced as leader in due course. And
the allegations of antisemitism were, of course, essentially based on Corbyn's support for the Palestinians. I think Lewis sincerely believes
that criticism of Israel is usually motivated by antisemitism and a
desire to destroy the state of Israel.
I think Lewis sincerely believes
that criticism of Israel is usually motivated by antisemitism and a
desire to destroy the state of Israel.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 50:41:21 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,067 |
| Messages: | 6,417,317 |
| Posted today: | 1 |