Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Labour Set To Take London


rollover
 Share

Recommended Posts

There are (at least) two private renters elected to the London Assembly now. Sian Berry for the Green Party and Tom Copley (Labour).

I don't know whether to feel happy that Labour politicians suffer due to the housing shortage Labour created, or depresed that they still stay in Labour

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why did you not chose to live in Dar Al Islam? Very few Christian or secular refugees chose to move to Islamic countries (and if they are converting from Islam would probably not even live in countries with any Muslims if recent stories from Germany are true).

Just out of interest, no offence intended.

Just out of interest, no offence intended - Curiosity is never offensive. ;)

Like most refugees Britain took in in the 80's, my country used to be part of the "Empire" (prior to independence). During the implosion (of my country), we did seek refuge in various Islamic countries(after-all, they are geographically closer etc), but reception we got was, frankly outrageous. I, (merely) witnessed beatings and robbery, but I've known people who have been killed approaching boarders of Islamic countries. Only, Islamic country (to my knowledge) to have treated people humanely, is Syria (Governmental and societal). For clarity, my family (and my country) is Sunni, the leadership of Syria is Shia.....which is made their actions all the more impressive!

My extended family settled in various parts of the EU initially,(UK, FR and NL). Ultimately, we have all ended up living in UK. Nothing to do with welfare or economics, but simply (and shockingly), UK is more tolerant (even compared to its EU peers). My family couldn't tolerate, being at odds with the authorities in France (constantly) over headscarves.

In NL, social services are overzealous when it comes to interference in he family unit, under the guise of integration. I'm not talking about child abuse (which all countries should/must deal with), if a child didn't participate in school trip because the parents couldn't afford it, the social services would visit the parents and accuse them of prohibiting the child's integrating. Yet, I was excused from participating in catholic prayers, trips to churches and no one raised any concerns about my integration. My Arsenal shirt and Eminem CD may have spared me that, but our general impression is:

1. Laws in the UK generally tend to be well balanced, relative to its peers.

2. Society and Government was neutral or positive towards refugees. (Sadly and much to my personal distaste, the latter has changed).

Dar Al Islam isn't what is used to be! The current leaders are not cut from the same cloth as those who took in the Jews during the inquisition. They are not capable of funding science nor technology. Even, traditionally progressive nations like Malaysia appear to be regressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of interest, no offence intended - Curiosity is never offensive. ;)

Like most refugees Britain took in in the 80's, my country used to be part of the "Empire" (prior to independence). During the implosion (of my country), we did seek refuge in various Islamic countries(after-all, they are geographically closer etc), but reception we got was, frankly outrageous. I, (merely) witnessed beatings and robbery, but I've known people who have been killed approaching boarders of Islamic countries. Only, Islamic country (to my knowledge) to have treated people humanely, is Syria (Governmental and societal). For clarity, my family (and my country) is Sunni, the leadership of Syria is Shia.....which is made their actions all the more impressive!

My extended family settled in various parts of the EU initially,(UK, FR and NL). Ultimately, we have all ended up living in UK. Nothing to do with welfare or economics, but simply (and shockingly), UK is more tolerant (even compared to its EU peers). My family couldn't tolerate, being at odds with the authorities in France (constantly) over headscarves.

In NL, social services are overzealous when it comes to interference in he family unit, under the guise of integration. I'm not talking about child abuse (which all countries should/must deal with), if a child didn't participate in school trip because the parents couldn't afford it, the social services would visit the parents and accuse them of prohibiting the child's integrating. Yet, I was excused from participating in catholic prayers, trips to churches and no one raised any concerns about my integration. My Arsenal shirt and Eminem CD may have spared me that, but our general impression is:

1. Laws in the UK generally tend to be well balanced, relative to its peers.

2. Society and Government was neutral or positive towards refugees. (Sadly and much to my personal distaste, the latter has changed).

Dar Al Islam isn't what is used to be! The current leaders are not cut from the same cloth as those who took in the Jews during the inquisition. They are not capable of funding science nor technology. Even, traditionally progressive nations like Malaysia appear to be regressing.

I wouldnt call overturning (or forcing employers, for example) to overturn long established dress codes because of one groups cultural proclivities 'tolerant', i'd call it enacting double standards and preferential treatment. But thats just me...

But thanks for confirming what I long suspected. That our utter inability to draw a line in the sand and say 'no more' is why most of Europes muslims are ending up here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldnt call overturning (or forcing employers, for example) to overturn long established dress codes because of one groups cultural proclivities 'tolerant', i'd call it enacting double standards and preferential treatment. But thats just me...

But thanks for confirming what I long suspected. That our utter inability to draw a line in the sand and say 'no more' is why most of Europes muslims are ending up here.

Whilst I am not a historian, religion exemptions existed long before Muslims arrived in significant numbers. Jews and Sikhs come to mind. However, by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of yours views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I am not a historian, religion exemptions existed long before Muslims arrived in significant numbers. Jews and Sikhs come to mind. However, by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of yours views.

Muslims hiding behind Jews and Sikhs..... That's a laugh! :lol:

Not all religions are tolerated.

State Shintō (国家神道 Kokka Shintō?) describes Imperial Japan's ideological use of the native folk traditions of Shinto.[1]:547The state strongly encouraged Shinto practices to emphasize the Emperor as a divine being.[2]:8 This was exercised through control of finances and training regimes for priests.[3][4]:59[5]:120

The State Shinto ideology emerged at the start of the Meiji era, as government officials defined freedom of religion within theMeiji Constitution.[6]:115 Scholars believed that Shinto reflected the historical fact of the Emperor's divine origins, not religious belief, and that it should enjoy a privileged relationship with the Japanese state.[2]:8[4]:59 For the state, Shinto was seen as a non-religious moral tradition and patriotic practice.[4]:59[5]:120

Early Meiji-era attempts to unite Shinto and state failed,[6]:51 but this non-religious concept of ideological Shinto was incorporated into state bureaucracy.[7]:547[8] Shrines were defined as patriotic, not religious, institutions, which served state purposes such as honoring the war dead.[6]:91 The state also integrated local shrines into political functions, occasionally spurring local opposition and resentment.[5]:120 With fewer shrines financed by the state, nearly 80,000 closed or merged with neighbors.[6]:98[7]:118 Many shrines and shrine organizations began to independently embrace these state directives, regardless of funding.[7]:114 By 1940, Shinto priests risked persecution for performing traditionally "religious" Shinto ceremonies.[6]:25[9]:699

Imperial Japan did not draw a distinction between ideological Shinto and traditional Shinto.[7]:100US military leaders introduced the term "State Shinto" to differentiate the state's ideology from traditional Shinto practices[2]:38 in the 1945 Shinto Directive.[2]:38 That decree established Shinto as a religion, and banned further ideological uses of Shinto by the state.[9]:703 Controversy continues to surround the use of Shinto symbols in state functions.[3]:428[9]:706[10]

Source :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Shinto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe, we were/are talking about UK(Not imperial Japan). Religion tolerated by the Roman! Lets not forget, who killed Christ and why!

My point is, Muslims aren't the first to receive an exemption from uniforms, this the complaint isn't or can't be that problem here.

But, I'll let you guys work why Islam and Muslims are such a problem.

Muslims hiding behind Jews and Sikhs..... That's a laugh! :lol:

Not all religions are tolerated.

Source :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Shinto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great to have your perspective, 80sbaby. Glad to hear that you have found the UK to be a welcoming place. I agree with your observations regarding Malaysia. What once gave the appearance of a reasonably multicultural place (albeit still within fairly conservative limits) looks increasingly like it's embarking on a programme of cultural cleansing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I am not a historian, religion exemptions existed long before Muslims arrived in significant numbers. Jews and Sikhs come to mind. However, by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of yours views.

The facts in this are not exactly the same. A Sikh wearing a turban instead of a crash helmet harms himself rather than anyone else. Muslim women demanding the ability to cover their face in public has let many criminals escape justice some Muslim some not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537514/Veil-escape-exposes-chaos-in-border-controls.html

I doubt few would complain about a dress that does not have security problems.

David Davis, the shadow foreign secretary, said passport checks should require all travellers to show their faces whatever the religious sensitivities of doing so.

The row broke out after the disclosure this week that Mustaf Jama, who is wanted in connection with the murder of Pc Sharon Beshenivsky, may have escaped by dressing in a niqab, which covers the whole face except the eyes.

Jama, 26, is believed to have left for his native Somalia using his sister's passport. Although ports had been alerted, it is unlikely a veiled woman would have been asked to show her face during passport checks. Inspections are no longer carried out by immigration officers on a routine basis for departees.

It is unbelievable that veiled women do not have to show their face during passport checks.

Edited by iamnumerate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Society and Government was neutral or positive towards refugees. (Sadly and much to my personal distaste, the latter has changed).

Dar Al Islam isn't what is used to be! The current leaders are not cut from the same cloth as those who took in the Jews during the inquisition. They are not capable of funding science nor technology. Even, traditionally progressive nations like Malaysia appear to be regressing.

Bearing in mind the number of bogus refugees it is not surprising that it has changed. (I know some bogus refugees not Muslims although of course there are lots of bogus Muslim refugees Abu Qatada comes to mind). Also don't forget the first ever policeman killed by Al Qaeda in the UK was killed by an illegal immigrant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephen_Oake

If we had had stricter immigration controls he would still be alive.

Thank God that Dar Al Islam is not the same as the ones who took in the Jews they also raided the west for slaves for hundreds of years, there was IIFRC no Muslim anti slave trade campaign rather the west forced them to stop doing with weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I am not a historian, religion exemptions existed long before Muslims arrived in significant numbers. Jews and Sikhs come to mind. However, by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of yours views.

Sure. And despite not seeing much in the way of sikh extremism, I still dont think exceptions should be made for Sikh police officers in Turbans, for example. All police should wear the same headgear. One rule for all should mean one rule. Religion should not even be considered. If your religion prohibits something, dont do that something. Dont expect it to change for you. However, i never recall Jews being so vocal as muslims are about halal/kosher food. I've never heard of Jewish employees at supermarkets getting stressed if pork were sold. Lets face it, Tesco's probably wouldnt have got very far in its early days if its Jewish founder refused to sell pork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Few points:

1. Nothing in Islam demands women be completely covered(Burka etc). That isn't to say, headscarf isn't mentioned Hadith. But this is a huge difference between the two.

2. There isn't anything against a female officer taking a covered woman into a room and asking her to show her face.

3. In terms of slavery, raiding was a common feature of the middle ages. Surely you aren't suggesting Muslims were the first or the only participants? You should look at the West Indies....I don't think those guys go there by themselves!

4. One act of terrorism is indicative of weak border controls? I am sure the IRA didn't come from Ireland illegally during the troubles and carry out bombings. Nor try to blow up Thatcher, kill lord mountbatten and mortar MI5. Let's be serious for a moment, Islamist are dangerous. However, most who have carried out the most spectacular acts have travelled via legitimate means. That's isn't to say they aren't trying to inflitrate via the refugee channels. Terrorist and criminal will exploit any avenues available to them.

The facts in this are not exactly the same. A Sikh wearing a turban instead of a crash helmet harms himself rather than anyone else. Muslim women demanding the ability to cover their face in public has let many criminals escape justice some Muslim some not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537514/Veil-escape-exposes-chaos-in-border-controls.html

I doubt few would complain about a dress that does not have security problems.

It is unbelievable that veiled women do not have to show their face during passport checks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vast majority of Muslim employee don't have a problem with either(pork or alcohol).

If they don't want to do the job, I am sure it is their choice. If they are breaching the terms of their employment....then they should be fired. One rule for all, after all.

Sure. And despite not seeing much in the way of sikh extremism, I still dont think exceptions should be made for Sikh police officers in Turbans, for example. All police should wear the same headgear. One rule for all should mean one rule. Religion should not even be considered. If your religion prohibits something, dont do that something. Dont expect it to change for you. However, i never recall Jews being so vocal as muslims are about halal/kosher food. I've never heard of Jewish employees at supermarkets getting stressed if pork were sold. Lets face it, Tesco's probably wouldnt have got very far in its early days if its Jewish founder refused to sell pork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Few points:

1. Nothing in Islam demands women be completely covered(Burka etc). That isn't to say, headscarf isn't mentioned Hadith. But this is a huge difference between the two.

2. There isn't anything against a female officer taking a covered woman into a room and asking her to show her face.

3. In terms of slavery, raiding was a common feature of the middle ages. Surely you aren't suggesting Muslims were the first or the only participants? You should look at the West Indies....I don't think those guys go there by themselves!

4. One act of terrorism is indicative of weak border controls? I am sure the IRA didn't come from Ireland illegally during the troubles and carry out bombings. Nor try to blow up Thatcher, kill lord mountbatten and mortar MI5. Let's be serious for a moment, Islamist are dangerous. However, most who have carried out the most spectacular acts have travelled via legitimate means. That's isn't to say they aren't trying to inflitrate via the refugee channels. Terrorist and criminal will exploit any avenues available to them.

2 - who should pay for that cost, also it really stops the benefit of CCTV

3 - I am not saying that Islam is the only religion to have practiced slavery, I was pointing out that although during the middle ages many people talk about Islamic tolerance the picture is far more mixed. I do think that there was no Muslim William Wilberforce but I am willing to be corrected

4 - There are two types of terrorism imported and indigenous, if we had a Polish style immigration policy in the last 50 years we would only have indigenous, sadly many decent people would not have been allowed to come here but then again not everyone who wants to can come here anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Everyone is already paying, lady boarder guards are already in place and already being paid for. FYI a very small percentage of Muslim women completely cover themselves.

3. Sure, there was no Wilberforce. Yet, there was equality between Muslim, Jews and Orthodox Christians. There was no inquisition.

4. Having lived in Poland(banished by work to Poland), Polish immigration policy doesn't exist! No one wants to go there :lol: Lets not use them as a bench mark. There is a reason why all young (and progressive) Poles are here! :)

2 - who should pay for that cost, also it really stops the benefit of CCTV

3 - I am not saying that Islam is the only religion to have practiced slavery, I was pointing out that although during the middle ages many people talk about Islamic tolerance the picture is far more mixed. I do think that there was no Muslim William Wilberforce but I am willing to be corrected

4 - There are two types of terrorism imported and indigenous, if we had a Polish style immigration policy in the last 50 years we would only have indigenous, sadly many decent people would not have been allowed to come here but then again not everyone who wants to can come here anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Everyone is already paying, lady boarder guards are already in place and already being paid for. FYI a very small percentage of Muslim women completely cover themselves.

3. Sure, there was no Wilberforce. Yet, there was equality between Muslim, Jews and Orthodox Christians. There was no inquisition.

4. Having lived in Poland(banished by work to Poland), Polish immigration policy doesn't exist! No one wants to go there :lol: Lets not use them as a bench mark. There is a reason why all young (and progressive) Poles are here! :)

Where and when in the Muslim world were Christians and Muslims equal? Surely the concept of being a Dhimmi existed until the 20th century and non Muslims are not allowed to go to Mecca or Medina (not a big loss, although imagine the complaints if Italy were to say the same about Rome or the Russian Orthodox about Moscow)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. On the point of Equality. In modern terms, of course it wastn't equality (in the Muslim world). Yet, if you compare the caliphate with what was going on in the West (so-called dark ages).....it was rather progressive.

2. I'm pretty sure the exclusion of the non muslims in Mecca and Medina will change....just wait for oil run out! We'll see how quickly they realise they can't maintain a economy based on export of dates! :lol:

Where and when in the Muslim world were Christians and Muslims equal? Surely the concept of being a Dhimmi existed until the 20th century and non Muslims are not allowed to go to Mecca or Medina (not a big loss, although imagine the complaints if Italy were to say the same about Rome or the Russian Orthodox about Moscow)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prior to the ill fated Iraq war II, I don't recall a single case of Islamic extremism in Europe. That's is not to say they didn't exist.....but EU was not their enemy....America was. I am not saying we wouldn't have become their enemy eventually!

However, on a strict causality, it can be (fairly) argued, we brought this on ourselves!

Sure. And despite not seeing much in the way of sikh extremism, I still dont think exceptions should be made for Sikh police officers in Turbans, for example. All police should wear the same headgear. One rule for all should mean one rule. Religion should not even be considered. If your religion prohibits something, dont do that something. Dont expect it to change for you. However, i never recall Jews being so vocal as muslims are about halal/kosher food. I've never heard of Jewish employees at supermarkets getting stressed if pork were sold. Lets face it, Tesco's probably wouldnt have got very far in its early days if its Jewish founder refused to sell pork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prior to the ill fated Iraq war II, I don't recall a single case of Islamic extremism in Europe. That's is not to say they didn't exist.....but EU was not their enemy....America was. I am not saying we wouldn't have become their enemy eventually!

However, on a strict causality, it can be (fairly) argued, we brought this on ourselves!

Ourselves? Is that the muslim ourselves or the British ourselves?

We didn't ask for this.... a massive islamic fart in your face every second of the day. We tried to help you* and you f**ked it up. Don't blame us for your pathetic religion. Until we invented the internet and mobile phone you though the qur'an was true! :lol:

* - When I say you, I don't personally mean you 80'sBaby. I mean the islamic world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brace yourself for a fatwa or two for the farts! :P

I meant the "British ourselves" in particular and the EU in general! I could be wrong but I swear those boys in Khaki running around Basra were from here.....but I'm happy to be corrected! :lol:

Ourselves? Is that the muslim ourselves or the British ourselves?

We didn't ask for this.... a massive islamic fart in your face every second of the day. We tried to help you* and you f**ked it up. Don't blame us for your pathetic religion. Until we invented the internet and mobile phone you though the qur'an was true! :lol:

* - When I say you, I don't personally mean you 80'sBaby. I mean the islamic world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. On the point of Equality. In modern terms, of course it wastn't equality (in the Muslim world). Yet, if you compare the caliphate with what was going on in the West (so-called dark ages).....it was rather progressive.

I doubt coptic Christians were any better off than celts being conquered by the Anglo Saxons. The difference of course it is a long time since celts were persecuted in the UK, however Coptic Christians are still persecuted. The other difference of course is that no one in the west would ever want the dark ages back, many Muslims want the caliphate back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prior to the ill fated Iraq war II, I don't recall a single case of Islamic extremism in Europe. That's is not to say they didn't exist.....but EU was not their enemy....America was. I am not saying we wouldn't have become their enemy eventually!

However, on a strict causality, it can be (fairly) argued, we brought this on ourselves!

What about Salman Rushdie and the 1995 attacks in Paris?

Anyway although many Muslims are peaceful what causes Islamic terrorism is having Muslims in a country. Countries like Poland have an almost identical foreign policy to the UK and unlike France took part in the Iraq war but have no terrorism.

Some Latin American countries like Colombia and Mexico will also have never Islamic terrorism although I do NOT condone their solution (the knowledge that one act of terrorism will cause massive private retaliation).

Saying that I don't dislikes Muslims personally I just think in large numbers their presence is not beneficial. As their prophet said "If anyone changes his religion kill him", words don't exist to say how much I dislike him.

Edited by iamnumerate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Plight of Egyptians Coptic's is a disgrace. On this we agree!

2. You do realise the last caliphate ruled from Turkey to Morocco? It was stupidly run, but then again, it was a monarchy. It wasn't the dark ages but it was not exactly enlightened.

Muslim clamour for the caliphate is nothing more of a dissatisfaction the leadership and the management of their own lands. Needless to say....careful what you wish for! :lol:

3. Rushdie, was a slight over reaction!

4. Paris attack is interesting because France was officially neutral...but yet Algerian Gov was well armed with french made gear. In that context, '95 bombings are hardly a surprise.

5. Difference between UK, FR and PL is simple....PL stated policy is never really implemented. Action(Typoons and Mirages) is far louder than words. Polish troop contribution to Iraq was insignificant.

6. Narco states vs ISIL - I am pretty sure suicide bombers don't care able retaliation......in fact, usually that is their objective.

7. I love your statement, it is very true:

Saying that I don't dislikes cholesterol personally I just think in large numbers presence its not beneficial. -British heart foundation

Saying that I don't dislikes conquistador personally I just think in large numbers their presence is not beneficial. - Mayan :-p

Saying that I don't dislikes settlers personally I just think in large numbers their presence is not beneficial. - Aborigine

Etc etc :lol:

What about Salman Rushdie and the 1995 attacks in Paris?

Anyway although many Muslims are peaceful what causes Islamic terrorism is having Muslims in a country. Countries like Poland have an almost identical foreign policy to the UK and unlike France took part in the Iraq war but have no terrorism.

Some Latin American countries like Colombia and Mexico will also have never Islamic terrorism although I do NOT condone their solution (the knowledge that one act of terrorism will cause massive private retaliation).

Saying that I don't dislikes Muslims personally I just think in large numbers their presence is not beneficial. As their prophet said "If anyone changes his religion kill him", words don't exist to say how much I dislike him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying that I don't dislikes Muslims personally I just think in large numbers their presence is not beneficial..... Is just somebody being polite. ;)

The islamic world is falling apart, tearing itself to pieces and you know the best thing about it.... hardly any kafir are dying. It's a win win!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Plight of Egyptians Coptic's is a disgrace. On this we agree!

2. You do realise the last caliphate ruled from Turkey to Morocco? It was stupidly run, but then again, it was a monarchy. It wasn't the dark ages but it was not exactly enlightened.

Muslim clamour for the caliphate is nothing more of a dissatisfaction the leadership and the management of their own lands. Needless to say....careful what you wish for! :lol:

3. Rushdie, was a slight over reaction!

4. Paris attack is interesting because France was officially neutral...but yet Algerian Gov was well armed with french made gear. In that context, '95 bombings are hardly a surprise.

5. Difference between UK, FR and PL is simple....PL stated policy is never really implemented. Action(Typoons and Mirages) is far louder than words. Polish troop contribution to Iraq was insignificant.

6. Narco states vs ISIL - I am pretty sure suicide bombers don't care able retaliation......in fact, usually that is their objective.

7. I love your statement, it is very true:

Saying that I don't dislikes cholesterol personally I just think in large numbers presence its not beneficial. -British heart foundation

Saying that I don't dislikes conquistador personally I just think in large numbers their presence is not beneficial. - Mayan :-p

Saying that I don't dislikes settlers personally I just think in large numbers their presence is not beneficial. - Aborigine

Etc etc :lol:

1. Agreement is good.

2. Strictly speaking the caliphate was a religious leader more than a monarchy, it also was the only organization capable of calling for offensive Jihad. A Caliph could threaten a non Muslim country and say convert or die (which is how it ruled so much land).

5. In 2004 Spain had 1200 soldiers in Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq#2004_withdrawals

In 2005 Poland had 2500 soldiers in Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_involvement_in_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Spain got bombed Poland didn't. Possibly this was because the Polish police are so much able than the British and Spanish police possibly for another reason.

6. I don't think suicide bombers want all Muslims in their host country killed - although it is impossible to find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.