Another example for three strikes

October 24th, 2011 at 3:50 pm by David Farrar

The Dom Post reports:

A Rotorua man who subdued a young girl with fly spray and then raped her has been jailed for 10 years.

Robin Whitiora Chadwick appeared in the High Court at Rotorua this morning on a single charge of sexual violation by rape.

Chadwick, a part time security guard, had forced the 13 year old girl to inhale two cans of fly spray before raping her at a house near Lake Tarawera in 2009. …

Chadwick continued to deny his guilt and showed no remorse towards the victim, the court heard.

Justice John Priestley said Chadwick had a previously been jailed for the rape of two younger girls in Taranaki in 1994.

In this case the girl’s young age, her vulnerability, the use of the fly spray to stupefy the girl, and the isolated location of the offending were aggravating factors in sentencing Chadwick to 10 years imprisonment, with a minimum non parole period of five years, he said.

If had been in previously, at a minimum his 1994 rape convictions would be a first strike, which means he would not be eligible for parole for this rape. This would put him away for ten years, instead of a minimum five years only. Personally I think having raped three children is enough leniency, and he shouldn’t be getting out to rape anymore.

Bit his offending is even worse than that. The Rotorua Daily Post reveals:

Justice John Priestley said Chadwick, 57, had 24 previous convictions

Now if any of those were strike offences also, then he would be getting 20 years with no parole for this rape.

Now bear in mind that Labour are committed to repealing the three strikes law,which means scum like Chadwick can carry on getting parole time after time after time. A change of Government will have real consequences.

Tags: ,

42 Responses to “Another example for three strikes”

  1. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    It is worth noting that if it was not for ACT this legislation to protect the pubic from dangerous criminals would not have been passed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. rolla_fxgt (311 comments) says:

    Any relation to Steve Chadwick? Given that Chadwick isn’t a very common name, my interest is peaked, since she is standing in the seat.

    But yes a clear reason for 3 strikes, something we should all remember when we here for anyone calling for its overturning.

    [DPF: Speculating on relatives of criminals is unhelpful]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. simonway (371 comments) says:

    You oppose parole for serious offenders? So you think that the worst criminals, when released from prison (as most are eventually), should not be subject to special conditions and supervision that allow them to be recalled back to prison easily? I wouldn’t expect you to be so soft on crime, dpf.

    [DPF: Don't twist and lie. What I am arguing against is letting them out early so they can carry on offending. How many children would you let him rape before conceding that no amount of parole or supervision is needed. What is needed is keeping him behind bars until he is no longer a danger. Three strikes will achiever that far better than the law Labour wants us to return to]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. thedavincimode (6,532 comments) says:

    You look at this and wonder why it would even need a 3 strikes law.

    He is a residivist rapist. He didn’t get in a fight and punch someone and then commit an armed robbery ten years later. He is a rapist. He preys on young girls. Why does it require a three strikes law when a sentencing judge can see that there is a clear danger that he will rape again.

    What on earth does the sentencing judge in this latest case think he will do when he gets out? This time he used flyspray to incapacitate his victim. What will he do next time?

    But he gets only 5 years non-parole!!

    Pfft.

    [DPF: It requires a law change, because Judges are bound by precedent without a law change.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Ross Miller (1,661 comments) says:

    ‘Chadwick’ …. any relation to the Labour List MP who also lives in Rotorua and is campaigning (as is her Party) on having the three strikes rule done away with?

    Just wondering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Scott Chris (5,878 comments) says:

    davincimode says:- “You look at this and wonder why it would even need a 3 strikes law.”

    Exactly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    The maximum sentence for rape is 20 years as it was in 1994, so even if he was given 15 years each on his two previous he would still have 12 years and change to go, ergo, no rape here in 2009.

    Its the sentencing Judges and our thinking that people can be rehabilitated without any risk to society that is the problem, not whether new legislation has been brought in.There is already ample there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. PaulL (5,873 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay: the maximum is typically given for the worst possible instance of that crime, and then all other crimes are some fraction of that. I don’t know the details here, clearly he stupified the victim, and she was young. But, not sure how that stacks up against gang rape of some of the other horrific rapes out there. Sure, it’s true that all rape is horrific, but without agreeing that some are less horrific, we can’t provide a higher penalty for those that are more horrific.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. dime (9,430 comments) says:

    he can be out in 5 years for this? holy shit.

    lucky hes not in the US. he probably woulda got 30 years

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    PaulL

    Realize all that but his rapes in 1994 must have earned him about bugger all, there is the aggravating factor on this one that the victim was young again. Then you have his previous history which will show if he had recieved decent sentences on them he may not have offended on these victims at all

    Then he would have been a candidate for PD, so there are facts that obviously are not being reported because this sentencing is real botom end these days

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. tas (595 comments) says:

    Labour’s opposition to three strikes needs to be publicised more.

    I’m yet to hear an example–real or hypothetical–where the three strikes law is too harsh. Can someone in Labour please provide one? Because I just don’t see it.

    Frankly, I think the death penalty might be appropriate for this guy, simply because it is the only way to stop him from being a drain on society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. thedavincimode (6,532 comments) says:

    eastbay

    You mean he has spilt some beans?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. tvb (4,203 comments) says:

    The 3 strikes legislation useless and meaningless even if it applied. All it would mean is that Chadwick will not get parole. In this case with his previous list he will struggle to satisfy the Parole Board he does not present a safety risk to the community.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. thedavincimode (6,532 comments) says:

    tas

    Good point. Perfect timing for Labour’s 3 strikes policy release.

    GOAL!! (own)

    As for killing the dreadful bastard, there is a point where society loses its moral authority to render justice. I think that would be crossed in this guy’s case, irrespective of what he did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    TDM

    or circumstances regarding the vicitms behaviour, which is horrifying really given she was only 13 !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Johnboy (14,980 comments) says:

    What a load of crap. Removal of his raping equipment with a blunt, rusty, hacksaw blade at the time of the first offence would have saved the rest of society a lot of strife/cash.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. thedavincimode (6,532 comments) says:

    Ah … so, eastbay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. thedavincimode (6,532 comments) says:

    Johnboy

    The docking iron instead perhaps? I don’t see its original design function as being a problem in terms of achieving the desired outcome.

    Or were you planning on making him tidy up afterwards?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. simonway (371 comments) says:

    What I am arguing against is letting them out early so they can carry on offending.

    It definitely sounds like you’re opposed to parole in general. If you think certain crimes should have longer sentences, why not just say that you think sentences should be increased? The mistake seems to be that you’re thinking of parole as “letting criminals out early” when there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be thinking of no parole as “keeping criminals in longer”.

    [DPF: I think the three strikes law gets its about right. You can get parole for minor offences. Even if you keep offending, then so long as it is not of a serious violent or sexual nature, then you keep eligibility for parole.

    If you commit a serious crime such as homicide, rape, wounding then you get parole on your first serious offence. You even keep getting it for later minor offences.

    But if you go on and commit a second serious violent or sexual offence, then you lose the benefit of the doubt and you get no parole. You do not get out early after your second rape or wounding.

    And if you go on and do a third serious violent or sexual offence, they you stay in jail for as long as is the maximum sentence for that crime, because the probability is you will just keep on offending, and we wish to minimise the number of victims you get through.

    It's a great law (could be made better though), and I am against any repeal of it]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Johnboy (14,980 comments) says:

    Far too humane the docking iron.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Nick K (1,068 comments) says:

    Now bear in mind that Labour are committed to repealing the three strikes law,which means scum like Chadwick can carry on getting parole time after time after time.

    And so is Peter Dunne and United Future if his appearance on Backbenches last week is any guide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. rolla_fxgt (311 comments) says:

    [DPF: Speculating on relatives of criminals is unhelpful]

    Sorry DPF I was just thinking/asking out loud if anyone knew. Often its not the case that they are related, but sometimes they are, and as someone else pointed out, if, and at this stage its a highly unlikely if, Steve is calling for the repeal of a law that could benefit someone known to her, then we the voters deserve to know.

    Open democracy and all.

    I’m not one to spread false rumours/inuendo, unlike some others have on this blog previously. But I do believe strongly in finding out the truth about things.

    So if anyone could clear it up for me (with the actual truth, not just rumour/inuendo/wishful thinking), that’d be great!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. freedom101 (462 comments) says:

    It was ACT who promoted the three strikes law. National would not have passed this if not pressured by ACT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. kowtow (7,624 comments) says:

    3 stikes is bullshit,
    No need for it if there was real sentencing in the first place.
    How many lives have to be destroyed by criminals before the “justice” system deals with them the way they deserve?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Other_Andy (2,292 comments) says:

    The last sentence….

    “Justice John Priestley said Chadwick, 57, had 24 previous convictions”

    24 Convictions!!!
    Another career criminal.

    They could at least microchip them.
    If it is good enough for dogs it is good enough for those mongrels.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. thepolecat (63 comments) says:

    Sounds more like a good reason to bring back Capital Punishment. One bullet is cheaper than another 20-30 years of incarceration.

    And more to the point, he bloody well deserves it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pharmachick (228 comments) says:

    I struggle with this issue …

    first (full disclosure) I am an advocate of the death penalty for capital crimes.

    So then this also plays into my thoughts on this sort of violent sexual offending (and particularly against our most vulnerable). Pedophiles are recidivist offenders with a seemingly (statistically) incredibly low rate of rehabilitation.

    This guy has repeatedly sexually abused young girls.

    It is very hard to separate rage and distress from a rational argument on law and order, but where I ultimately come down to and plant my staff is on the word “repeated”. How many times do we release a person like this to abuse our daughters, sisters, aunties, mothers, wives and friends?

    In my mind, that’s the best argument for 3 strikes … i.e. the answer is only 2 times, then you’re going down for a long time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    @kowtow

    3 stikes is bullshit,
    No need for it if there was real sentencing in the first place.

    Perhaps there wasn’t real sentencing in the first place and so the need for it [3 strikes] became apparent…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Griff (6,763 comments) says:

    3 stikes is bullshit

    3 strikes =bullet

    The only way

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Mick Mac (1,091 comments) says:

    PaulL (4,220) Says:
    October 24th, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    Paul I think you’ve on the wrong end for this one.

    A rape of a child is just that and shouldn’t get you easy time.
    Plus when he was convicted for his first rape I suspect it wasn’t his first conviction if he has 24 now.
    This is a failure of an individual Judge or magistrate who should have sentenced severely as she was a child and he did the deed.
    so what if he only used stupification, violence is in the rape.

    now for now. 5 years is bollocks.
    The judge should be retired as not fit for purpose.

    he has a history against young girls.
    he has a history of previous convictions (24)

    Until we deal to the judiciary on this and other cases it will not change.
    they live in a parallel world of 300k a year and their clubs and inbreeding with lawyers and same.

    I would love to see serious research (but the lawyers wouldn’t allow it) where by each magistrate and Judge’s cases and sentencing are listed and searchable.
    This has gone on for far too long and a National was forced to enact the three strikes law.
    which is a start but not enough.

    our children are worth it.
    name and shame, sack and retire all the limp judiciary.
    12 ordinary people could and would be able to pass sentence knowing the event and his history I am sure.

    Many of us would do it for free if we could pass sentence after being given all the information the judge would have had.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. nasska (10,667 comments) says:

    Five years minimum, Ten years maximum = actual sentence of six years (plus one so that the public don’t think that the Parole Board are a bunch of total soft cocks.) Six years of safety for young girls when he should never get the chance to reoffend.

    If this piece of shit didn’t qualify for Preventative Detention then the bar for that sentence is set too high.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Nookin (3,034 comments) says:

    “You oppose parole for serious offenders? So you think that the worst criminals, when released from prison (as most are eventually), should not be subject to special conditions and supervision that allow them to be recalled back to prison easily? I wouldn’t expect you to be so soft on crime, dpf.”

    I think you have confused yourself, Simonway. It is implicit in your statement that serious offenders should be recalled if they are a risk. If they are locked up then there is no risk. You seem to be the one advocating longer sentences (ie some supervision at the end of a non-parole sentence. The rationale behind three-strikes is that punishment and deterence take priority over rehabilitation. If you want rehab, put it on top – don’t compromise public safety by letting them out early simply cos you can keep an eye on them while on parole.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Bogusnews (443 comments) says:

    Labour is saying they would need a “seismic shift” in their attitude before they won’t change the three strikes law.

    What’s wrong with those people. I can’t imagine why anyone would want a change to the three strikes. And yes, it is worth noting that we have ACT to thank for this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Sonny Blount (1,845 comments) says:

    If he has been convicted for 3 rapes then there is a good chance he has committed more. Any victims after his first conviction can put the blame squarely on the judiciary that let a man they had good reason to believe would rape again out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    [DPF: It requires a law change, because Judges are bound by precedent without a law change.]

    Well, then we need a law change.

    In whose world is a sentence of 10 years (five years in jail) an appropriate sentence for this man? He needed preventive detention. He should get PD just for forcing a child to inhale flyspray!! Our country is full of judges who don’t seem to actually care about the victims!

    Also about parole. You should serve your full sentence, then go on parole. i.e. TEN YEARS SHOULD MEAN TEN YEARS. And after that he can do 5 years parole. The public have expressed our view (albeit a view considered uneducated and ignorant by the legal fraternity) that we want to be kept safe from arseholes like him, we want people like this locked up! The current system is not justice.

    In terms of cost: If you could put a monetary value on the damage this piece of shit has done throughout his life (crimes, damage, lives ruined, dole, ACC), it would dwarf the cost of keeping him locked up. And I’d be happy to be paying a few extra cents tax (not that this is required) for his jail time if we could prevent him ruining the lives of our country’s citizens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. David Garrett (6,417 comments) says:

    bhudson: (and some others) spot on…it is – or rather WAS – precisely because the current law was allowing vermin like this to keep on preying on society that led to 3S in the first place.

    I still can’t quite believe the spectular own goal Labour has scored saying they are going to repeal it! Of the 700 plus “strike” sentences thus far I wager there is not one – and never will be one – which was not richly deserved….

    Be interesting what the socialists say in 2014 at election time when we will have half a dozen third strikers, all like this guy….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    I don’t see this as a good example of how three strikes makes us safer. I do not agree that the difference between 5 and 10 years imprisonment makes us significantly safer, or at all, in the long run. Note that this man’s two convictions were 17 years apart, almost the maximum term for rape. So simply locking him up for 10 years would likely make little difference given the frequency of offending. Also, since he’s already received prison time for the first conviction it’s difficult to believe that punishment deters this guy. He is a serial offender who probably requires preventive detention given the seriousness of his crimes.

    Part of the problem with three strikes is that it isn’t actually as tough on some crime as it ought to be. For me, a cold blooded murder should result in life without parole on the first strike. In this guy’s case his actions are so heinous that he probably shouldn’t be let out again, ever. Three strikes is ineffective in that regard whilst risking injustice due to the very high threshold set by the “manifestly unjust” standard.

    Seems to me we can have serious reform of sentencing guidelines without the need for populist gimmicks like three strikes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Also about parole. You should serve your full sentence, then go on parole. i.e. TEN YEARS SHOULD MEAN TEN YEARS. And after that he can do 5 years parole. The public have expressed our view (albeit a view considered uneducated and ignorant by the legal fraternity) that we want to be kept safe from arseholes like him, we want people like this locked up! The current system is not justice.

    Problem with that is that getting out early is an incentive for people to change. If parole comes at a specified time regardless of what the offender does in prison then I expect it would be less effective. Given that this man committed his crimes 17 years apart, I have little confidence that the length of sentence alone is going to make a significant difference to our safety. If he’s going to be let out I think the opportunity for early release probably has a better chance to motivate improvement in this man’s character than a fixed sentence, though overall it probably has little chance of success as well.

    What’s needed is better sentencing guidelines from the outset rather than this gimmicky three stage process. Given this man’s actions and history the presumption should be a much higher sentence, perhaps life with a non parole period of 15-20 years. It’s not simply that the judges don’t care about victims. In fact the judges are not supposed to care about anyone. Their job is to uphold the law, not supply the noose for a lynch mob. The problem is the guidelines they are given and three strikes is not really, in my view, a good rewrite of those guidelines.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Elaycee (4,301 comments) says:

    Of course, if this worthless toe rag was locked up forever (long ago), there would have been ZERO possibility of him ever re-offending. But no, 24 convictions and counting… including the most recent rape of a 13 year old child. A bloody 13 year old, FFS!

    And before the bleeding hearts and hand wringers expound their usual theories that these worthless hunks of humanity should be hugged, cuddled and ‘rehabilitated’, look at the disgraceful track record of this mongrel. Over years and years – a career rapist.

    In cases such as this, proper justice would be administered courtesy of Remington.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    Given that this man committed his crimes 17 years apart…

    He’s been convicted of 24 crimes and he’s not 408 years old, but I guess you’re only counting the child-rapes.

    I doubt he’s been and upstanding citizen in those intervening 17 years. Obviously I can’t prove it, but having met guys like this (and also victims of guys like this), I’d say he’s probably taken advantage of other girls who are disadvantaged and vulnerable, most without police reports and many without charges. A longer sentence would have kept these theoretical (but likely) unreported victims safe.

    If parole comes at a specified time regardless of what the offender does in prison then I expect it would be less effective.

    If you’re poorly behave in prison your sentence is increased. So you go in for ten years, you fight and riot and start fires – you’re sentence is now 15 years.

    In fact the judges are not supposed to care about anyone.

    Then they should stop letting offenders off the hook because they “make people laugh” or they had a “bad upbringing”, or they “deserve a second chance”. Don’t ask offenders to write a letter about “how wonderful life is”.

    I agree 3 strikes is far from perfect. But sadly it’s the best we’re going to get. It would be great if he got life with a 20 year non-parole period – and I don’t see what’s stopping the judges or the politicians – but sadly it ain’t gonna happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:


    He’s been convicted of 24 crimes and he’s not 408 years old, but I guess you’re only counting the child-rapes.

    Of course. It’s not simply that the other crimes may not have been strike offences, but that they are presumably not rape offences otherwise one would expect that to be mentioned. The point is that these rapes are not events which happen with high frequency and so are probably opportunistic. He’s not driving around in a van snatching random kids off the streets in which case I think there would be a high correspondence between the length of sentence and the amount of safety provided to the community. However, in this case even if he served ten years the likelihood is that he would offend again given the opportunity. The nature of this man’s offending does not, in my view, show the benefits of three strikes which is what David used it for.

    If you’re poorly behave in prison your sentence is increased. So you go in for ten years, you fight and riot and start fires – you’re sentence is now 15 years.

    Should we only concern ourselves with fighting and rioting? Being an acceptable prisoner is not the same as truly reforming one’s character. Early release should be used as an incentive for prisoners to change their attitudes through structured rehabilitative programmes.


    Then they should stop letting offenders off the hook because they “make people laugh” or they had a “bad upbringing”, or they “deserve a second chance”. Don’t ask offenders to write a letter about “how wonderful life is”.

    Notwithstanding the fact that I think you’re oversimplifying the case involving the comedian, the law directs the judges to consider an offender’s background in sentencing and it is right and proper that they should do this. A bad upbringing, for instance, might influence one’s assessment of the likelihood for rehabilitation and therefore what an appropriate sentence might be. The judge should take account of all the offender’s circumstances to make an overall judgement of the offender, their character and what sentence is appropriate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Victim (1 comment) says:

    I am a victim from the 1980s rapes. Weihana, No hes not a opportunist, what he did to me and the other victim was pre planned. I went thru years of counselling, I was 7-8 years old, the other victim was a year younger then me. Robin showed no remorse for us either when he appeared in the Hawera Courts…….My heart so goes out to the 13 year old, I know exactly what she is going thru, I thought I had dealt with this years ago, but knowing what Robin has done to this young girl has brought up memories and nightmares I now have to seek counselling once again………..so really what Im trying to say past my tears and emotions is….Robin did 4years for me and now 5 years for the newest victim all up hes doing a minimum of 9 years…..How many years have I served as his victim? I can tell you now I was 7-8 when I was raped by Robin and now I am 35 years old and I have to go back to counselling, 27-28 years I have served, same for the other victim, and now this 13year old. I know for a fact that this disgusting low life of a bastard will do it again, he will RAPE again…. it wouldnt supprise me if hes touched his own kids. I have to agree with Griff, 3 strikes = a bullet!!!! But even thats to easy for this monster, I would want him to suffer the way he has made us suffer, I read he has health problems….good fucken job cunt….Suffer suffer suffer, have a tase of what we your victims went thru and still are going thru!!! FUCK YOU ROBIN (aka Uncle Boss)…You rot in HELL!!! Ma te wa what goes around comes around, I wish you a slow death, I wish your illness gives you alot of pain, and when you Think you’v had enough and you pray to god to take the pain away and let you hurry up and die, I hope god makes you feel the pain, fear and hurt that you put into our lives, and I hope he makes you suffer a slow painful death.
    Oops sorry everyone, I got carried away there.
    DONT LET THIS MONSTER OUT…….HE WILL RAPE AGAIN!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.