Lord Seaton

Boris Johnson burqa remarks.

67 posts in this topic

Boris Johnson's remarks about the wearing of  burqas are what I think most of the electorate are thinking. Why should these women be allowed to carry on wearing this garment? It could be anybody in there including terrorists. When a photograph is taken for a passport or driving license you can not wear any type of headgear or spectacles if not normally worn...yet these women are allowed to do so. Boris is one of the only MP's with the balls to say what he is thinking. Why are these women allowed to carry on wearing...some countries have banned it. If you walk into a bank/building society there are notices asking you to remove crash helmets/goggles etc. so why not this garment? If they want to carry on wearing go to a country were their religion is more recognised...European women have to cover up in certain countries when visiting churches etc. they impose certain religous regulations to do with their country so why don't we and ban this form of dress? If I have offended anybody....hard luck..get over it you know it makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree regarding a security issue 👍🏻  

As you point out - you or I wouldn’t be allowed to swan around in a balaclava / bash hat or a mask without being stopped and made to remove it!! 😳

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lord Seaton said:

Boris Johnson's remarks about the wearing of  burqas are what I think most of the electorate are thinking. Why should these women be allowed to carry on wearing this garment? It could be anybody in there including terrorists. When a photograph is taken for a passport or driving license you can not wear any type of headgear or spectacles if not normally worn...yet these women are allowed to do so. Boris is one of the only MP's with the balls to say what he is thinking. Why are these women allowed to carry on wearing...some countries have banned it. If you walk into a bank/building society there are notices asking you to remove crash helmets/goggles etc. so why not this garment? If they want to carry on wearing go to a country were their religion is more recognised...European women have to cover up in certain countries when visiting churches etc. they impose certain religous regulations to do with their country so why don't we and ban this form of dress? If I have offended anybody....hard luck..get over it you know it makes sense.

I totally agree. I always think they look a bit like darleks. It must be hell for them this weather. It also devalues them as women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ruby said:

I totally agree. I always think they look a bit like darleks. It must be hell for them this weather. It also devalues them as women.

And we all know what the daleks wanted...world domination. Makes you think!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So couple years back a gang of guys dressed in burkas raided the jewelry department of Selfridges London - they obviously didn’t alert suspicion at first due to the ‘permitted dress code’ 😳

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you've all missed the point of Johnson's column.  He was stating that he did not support a ban on a the niqab.  But so as not to appear too liberal he mocked them for looking like a letter box or an armed robber.  His abuse was solely to hide the fact that he is not in favour of a ban.

Of course he is a middle aged, overweight, white male, with a mop of blond hair designed to hide his baldness (a familiar trait amongst the obnoxious apparently).  I think it's utterly ridiculous that he should choose to look like a premature ejaculation, but it's his choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s not turn this forum into a haven for racially motivated bigots looking for other narrow minded uncultured UKIPer’s.

How strange of the whole article Brois wrote that was in favour of NOT banning the aforementioned garment, people like you find the two insults direct at the female minority. And then try to insinuate a totally different meaning to the News paper column.

Then again I suppose when a very highly Eton educated man.  That is now being schooled by Bannon, writes an article he knows how much of the touch paper needs to be left exposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Seaton said:

Boris Johnson's remarks about the wearing of  burqas are what I think most of the electorate are thinking. 

  That is exactly why Boris said what he did.  He may like to play the buffoon, but he is a very clever man & judges that his comments will sit well with many, even though he still maintains he does not favour a ban, thus neatly facing both ways at once.    Upon this occasion, however, he has been rude, offensive & ignorant.  In respecting a woman's desire to wear a burqa or hijab, we recognise, as we should, that her religion is important to her.    

  Boris's words reveal him to be an opportunist & rabble rouser & certainly not a man who should be in high office, let alone PM. His action has totally changed my view of the man.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnson the "Pound shop Trump" is playing the part laid out for him by Bannon.

His burka remarks are market testing, as in how much of a storm will there be? How quickly will it pass? and then, how soon can I make this kind of talk acceptable?

He also does his usual cowardly thing of giving himself enough wriggle room so his friends can say he is supporting "liberal" values by not calling for a ban.

Johnson is concerned about only one thing and that's trying to wrestle the keys to No 10 from Mrs May. I have little time for her but even less for the calculating populist that is Johnson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boris Johnson is simply saying what a great many others think, but for fear of upsetting the apple cart, dare not say it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ObanMat said:

Boris Johnson is simply saying what a great many others think, but for fear of upsetting the apple cart, dare not say it.

What?  That we shouldn't ban the burka?  That's what he said.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnson may have progressed his political manoeuvring for the leadership of the Conservatives party by appealing to the bigots...

But he's dooming the party as he does so. Glad to hear self-respecting one nation Tories like Dominic Grieve say they would resign from the party if they were ever unfortunate enough to have Johnson as leader.

Edited by explorer1954

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems as though you attack the manner in which Mr. Johnson states an opinion, rather than debating the issue before you. We should respect women's rights to practice their religion, but these same people must accept the laws of the country they live in. What's wrong with that? One would think you would want to do all you could to minimize the chance of another terror attack. It seems as though so many people, on both sides of the pond, prefer to bend over backwards to prove how compassionate and unbiased they are, and throwing common sense and logic out the window.

I've read that these women are having their driver's license pics wearing this covering. If this is true, it is the epitome of a gov out of control and …..……

The man seemed to broach a subject that should be discussed, it seems like. How he begins the topic to maximize his future politics shouldn't be an issue. He's a politician.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does seem that Boris Johnson is playing the role of trouble maker, if he doesn't want to ban the burka. In my opinion the full face covering burka should be banned in public places in all western countries like France have done. Western countries have laws to prevent women from being discriminated against.  Passing laws to ban the burka is helping the Muslim women in order they are not discriminated against by their own men folk. I appreciate Muslim burka wearing women will claim it is their personal choice to wear the burka, but there is no doubt they are strongly influenced by male Muslims. I don't see passing laws in western countries to ban the burka is an attack against Islam, when the same traditional christian countries pass laws to legalise same sex marriage, which is against traditional Christian beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is CNN with a sensible outsider’s view of the fuss.
“This week, Johnson wrote a newspaper column to liken Muslim women wearing veils to postboxes and bank robbers. That offended some people. Others agreed with him.
There followed an angry row that will, eventually, fizzle out without resolution, both sides sticking to their starting positions and perhaps thinking even less of the people on the other side of the argument.”

They don’t understand the Westminster press corps’ love affair with Johnson and every stupid thing he does.

No one seems to know just how many women wear niqabs or burqas in Britain. Who cares? It’s not so much the numbers, nor how they look, nor concern for their downtrodden wellbeing. It is the creeping fear there may be a Muslim underneath.
That is guaranteed to strike terror into the hearts of the OTF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ObanMat said:

Boris Johnson is simply saying what a great many others think, but for fear of upsetting the apple cart, dare not say it.

110% agree 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, helen said:

No one seems to know just how many women wear niqabs or burqas in Britain. Who cares? It’s not so much the numbers, nor how they look, nor concern for their downtrodden wellbeing. It is the creeping fear there may be a Muslim underneath.

That is guaranteed to strike terror into the hearts of the OTF.

Continuous liberal political babble. You are the one obsessed the Muslims which amount to less than 5% of your population. But what about those damned Christians that represent a substantial part of your population? I don't believe I've ever heard of anyone commenting on the plight of the Christians.

What if I started a cult called 'What's Happenin' Now', and wore stockings over my head as part of my religious ensemble? And then walked into a bank to make a withdrawal. Did you ever think of that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rowlf said:

We should respect women's rights to practice their religion, but these same people must accept the laws of the country they live in. 

rowlf, you are a stupid old muppet.  It is perfectly legal in the UK for a women whether Muslim or not to wear whatever she chooses to cover her face (or not).

 

3 hours ago, rowlf said:

One would think you would want to do all you could to minimize the chance of another terror attack. It seems as though so many people, on both sides of the pond, prefer to bend over backwards to prove how compassionate and unbiased they are, and throwing common sense and logic out the window.

Perhaps you'd care to let us know how many terrorist attacks there have been where the attack was facilitated by the wearing of a Niqab?  Significant numbers of robberies are, I imagine,  facilitated by the use of wearing stockings or Donald Trump masks.  Should stockings and Donald Trump be banned in public for security reasons?  Your "common sense" would suggest so.

1 hour ago, rowlf said:

But what about those damned Christians that represent a substantial part of your population? I don't believe I've ever heard of anyone commenting on the plight of the Christians.

Perhaps that's because Christians are not being discriminated against to the same degree.  Christian women in the UK are just as entitled to wear the Niqab as are Muslim women.  Or is just Muslim women you want to prevent from wearing the Niqab (not that any I've known do)?

You've argued on other threads ad nauseam about your right to own a gun, but you are concerned about Muslim women covering their faces as a sign of modesty?  What's your problem?  Is it because you want to be able to see the faces of the women you can shoot?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

rowlf, you are a stupid old muppet.  It is perfectly legal in the UK for a women whether Muslim or not to wear whatever she chooses to cover her face (or not).

 

Perhaps you'd care to let us know how many terrorist attacks there have been where the attack was facilitated by the wearing of a Niqab?  Significant numbers of robberies are, I imagine,  facilitated by the use of wearing stockings or Donald Trump masks.  Should stockings and Donald Trump be banned in public for security reasons?  Your "common sense" would suggest so.

Perhaps that's because Christians are not being discriminated against to the same degree.  Christian women in the UK are just as entitled to wear the Niqab as are Muslim women.  Or is just Muslim women you want to prevent from wearing the Niqab (not that any I've known do)?

You've argued on other threads ad nauseam about your right to own a gun, but you are concerned about Muslim women covering their faces as a sign of modesty?  What's your problem?  Is it because you want to be able to see the faces of the women you can shoot?  

I could be waaaaaay wrong on this. But I betcha if each of these women were interviewed individually and info not be disclosed to their husbands, etc., not too many of them would wear this stuff. Oh, there would be a few zealots that would disagree, but not many. 

But you can't see that clearly. You are so caught up in your 'political correctness' stance, you can't see daylight for your obsessive liberal views. There's nothing wrong with showing compassion for others. But when a person goes bonkers in attempting to achieve some quasi self-esteem for themselves, you become dangerous to yourself and others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He wasn't being racist, just expressing an opinion knowing it would get a reaction, whatever the motivation (political or otherwise) behind his comments were - it's called freedom of speech!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rowlf said:

I could be waaaaaay wrong on this. But I betcha if each of these women were interviewed individually and info not be disclosed to their husbands, etc., not too many of them would wear this stuff. Oh, there would be a few zealots that would disagree, but not many. 

But you can't see that clearly. You are so caught up in your 'political correctness' stance, you can't see daylight for your obsessive liberal views. There's nothing wrong with showing compassion for others. But when a person goes bonkers in attempting to achieve some quasi self-esteem for themselves, you become dangerous to yourself and others.

So I'll take that as a "no" you are not aware of any terrorist attacks where the Niqab has been a critical element.

You argued about the legality, but no answer to the point it is legal in the UK.  You argued about the persecution of the Christian Majority, but no supporting evidence or further information comes from you.

I suggested that your right to own a gun is of greater concern than a Muslim woman's right to wear the Niqab and your only concern is whether she is choosing to wear it, or being pressured into doing so by a man.  I tell you what.  Just in case she is doing it out of choice, let's ban it and prevent her from having a choice.

I suspect you don't really give two hoots whether Muslim women wear the Niqab or not, but you're being pressured into saying that you do by your alt-right bigot friends.  How about we ban people from stating that the Niqab should be banned?  That way you won't have to succumb to the pressure and you'll be liberated.  You'll also be allowed to shoot anyone who does call for a ban.  Does that sound fair?

The only conclusion I can draw from your drivel rowlf, is that you don't like big Government, unless it's big Government cracking down on what Muslim women wear.

I'm interested rowlf.  In the US, is a Muslim woman allowed to conceal a firearm beneath her Niqab?  If so, wouldn't the banning of it be an infringement of her right to bear arms?  Or do you think Muslims should be prevented from bearing arms? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rebecca walescd said:

He wasn't being racist, just expressing an opinion knowing it would get a reaction, whatever the motivation (political or otherwise) behind his comments were - it's called freedom of speech!

He made derogatory comments and mocked the dress code followed by some of another faith.  That's not just expressing an opinion.

If I was to express a derogatory comment and mock the dress sense of transvestites, would you view that as just my expressing an opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much depends on the freedom of choice that the women have in wearing whatever form of dress; that applies to all individuals. If you want to criticise whatever I choose to wear, that's up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, rebecca walescd said:

He wasn't being racist, just expressing an opinion knowing it would get a reaction, whatever the motivation (political or otherwise) behind his comments were - it's called freedom of speech!

Thank you. You're a sweetie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is NOTHING in the Quran that says women must wear a burka or niqab. The holy book says women must dress modestly. The garb is nothing to do with Islam it is a cultural symbol imposed on women by men. As Rowlf says many Muslim women in private will tell you that they resent this interference by their menfolk. Such is the male Muslim paranoia that many female immigrants are so restricted in their movement and who they meet that they will never learn English. A very sad state of affairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

So I'll take that as a "no" you are not aware of any terrorist attacks where the Niqab has been a critical element.

This is not a court of law, just a forum. And I doubt it if either of us can be certain of any of these attacks have occurred.

You argued about the legality, but no answer to the point it is legal in the UK.  You argued about the persecution of the Christian Majority, but no supporting evidence or further information comes from you.

The extent to which I was referring to about the treatment of the Christians is confined to the members of this forum.

I suggested that your right to own a gun is of greater concern than a Muslim woman's right to wear the Niqab and your only concern is whether she is choosing to wear it, or being pressured into doing so by a man.  I tell you what.  Just in case she is doing it out of choice, let's ban it and prevent her from having a choice.

You don't know the length and the breadth of my opinions, but I'll guide you on this topic. I don't care what anybody wears, I just want them to wear something, even the women! But if people are driving, going through security checks, posing for documents, there should be full disclosure.

I suspect you don't really give two hoots whether Muslim women wear the Niqab or not, but you're being pressured into saying that you do by your alt-right bigot friends.  How about we ban people from stating that the Niqab should be banned?  That way you won't have to succumb to the pressure and you'll be liberated.  You'll also be allowed to shoot anyone who does call for a ban.  Does that sound fair?

I believe that these articles of clothing must be very uncomfortable. I don't believe anybody's God would ask them to do so. And I would imagine if Christians were doing the same thing, you would be poking fun at them, not defending them. That's just the way you are. AB, I am as liberated as man can be. After a man piles on several years of his life, if a man is truly retrospective, he can see things for what they are, or how they should be. But I am failable.

The only conclusion I can draw from your drivel rowlf, is that you don't like big Government, unless it's big Government cracking down on what Muslim women wear.

I don't like gov unless they're protecting my country's borders, building infrastructure, and any other job not having to do with social justice.

I'm interested rowlf.  In the US, is a Muslim woman allowed to conceal a firearm beneath her Niqab?  If so, wouldn't the banning of it be an infringement of her right to bear arms?  Or do you think Muslims should be prevented from bearing arms? 

Hmm.... if she had a concealed carry license, let her have at it! If not, it's against the law. I'm not talking of banning burkas, etc. I'm just saying there are certain times when the person should be identifiable. A Muslim living in the US has every right to carry a weapon. I wouldn't mind one bit. Just like anyone else, there's good and bad. Under God, no matter who's God, we should be equal. But God did give all most of us common sense, and we should use what God gave us.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in Florida. We have red light cameras that snap a pic of the driver when a car goes through a red light. You also cannot obscure your license plate so that it may be recorded with the picture. Then the state sends you a ticket with a picture of your car and the driver going through a red light.

When you get a drivers license they will photograph your face so that the police can identify you if you are stopped. In Florida it is illegal for anyone over the age of 12 to appear in public with anything that obscures a persons face with few exceptions like theatrical productions or a parade.

As I remember England has cameras which take a picture of a driver if he is speeding. How can that work if a person is wearing a full face cover? Are those cameras still working?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how many people commenting here are of the Muslim faith, I am not. However, if people who are seemingly offended want a balanced opinion perhaps they should research and consider the comments made in response to the whole matter by senior Imam Dr Taj Hargey and maybe respect that opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rowlf said:

This is not a court of law, just a forum. And I doubt it if either of us can be certain of any of these attacks have occurred.

That's priceless rowlf.  Almost as good as your imaginary meeting between Castro and JFK.  You've no idea whether this has ever happened, but instead of saying that you have no evidence, you couch it in terms of doubt about certainty.  You're simply playing with words to hide the fact that you're suggesting something has happened without having any knowledge about whether or not it has.

 

1 hour ago, rowlf said:

The extent to which I was referring to about the treatment of the Christians is confined to the members of this forum.

Oh rowlf, you're killing me.  Please explain how the Christians of this forum (of which I am one) are being unfairly discriminated against.  I can't wait to hear this.  I've got a bowl of pop corn to hand and some tissues in case you make me cry with laughter.

 

1 hour ago, rowlf said:

I don't like gov unless they're protecting my country's borders, building infrastructure, and any other job not having to do with social justice.

Oh rowlf, you're rolling them out tonight.  You've listed the roles that you are happy for the Government to take which are only three, but third one is "any job not involving social justice".  In effect you've said the Government's job is to do everything except social justice.

On the one hand you think that Muslim women wear the Niqab as a consequence of the misogyny of Muslim men, and that it should be banned in public.  While on the other hand you think the Government should have no role in social justice.  Can you not see the problem the problem with your argument?

If you don't think the Government has a role in dealing with social injustice, can we extrapolate from this that you are in favour of slavery and child labour?  Presumably racial and sexual discrimination are okay in your book too?  Or are these not social injustices?

Edited by Alteredbhoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, trojan said:

Let’s not turn this forum into a haven for racially motivated bigots looking for other narrow minded uncultured UKIPer’s.

How about not turning into a haven for self-righteous smear merchants with an ingrained superiority complex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

That's priceless rowlf.  Almost as good as your imaginary meeting between Castro and JFK.  You've no idea whether this has ever happened, but instead of saying that you have no evidence, you couch it in terms of doubt about certainty.  You're simply playing with words to hide the fact that you're suggesting something has happened without having any knowledge about whether or not it has.

 

Oh rowlf, you're killing me.  Please explain how the Christians of this forum (of which I am one) are being unfairly discriminated against.  I can't wait to hear this.  I've got a bowl of pop corn to hand and some tissues in case you make me cry with laughter.

 

Oh rowlf, you're rolling them out tonight.  You've listed the roles that you are happy for the Government to take which are only three, but third one is "any job not involving social justice".  In effect you've said the Government's job is to do everything except social justice.

On the one hand you think that Muslim women wear the Niqab as a consequence of the misogyny of Muslim men, and that it should be banned in public.  While on the other hand you think the Government should have no role in social justice.  Can you not see the problem the problem with your argument?

If you don't think the Government has a role in dealing with social injustice, can we extrapolate from this that you are in favour of slavery and child labour?  Presumably racial and sexual discrimination are okay in your book too?  Or are these not social injustices?

I did not say women wore the clothing due to misogynistic men. And I quite clearly stated that Muslim women could wear what they wanted to...….. except for security reasons they must be identified.

When I made my condensed comment about 'social issues', you actually extrapolated it to include my condoning child labor and slavery?

Take it easy on the weed. It's designed to mellow you out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, rebecca walescd said:

I don't know how many people commenting here are of the Muslim faith, I am not. However, if people who are seemingly offended want a balanced opinion perhaps they should research and consider the comments made in response to the whole matter by senior Imam Dr Taj Hargey and maybe respect that opinion.

I went to that website and listened to most of what he said.

I also read the comments, which ran the gambit of opinions. This is a heated debate and won't end soon. There are too many extremists that want to make it an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I don't totally agree with Boris comments and the word in which they were made, there needs to be a balance of understanding of other religions wherever you are in the world.  

 

I agree that Burqa's as far as I am aware from speaking to friends that are Muslim, is not a religious form of clothing and that you should be able to see the facial features, not just the eyes of the person wearing it.  

 

However, if the Burqa is banned do you then stop Seik's wearing Turban's, Catholic and Church of England priests wearing funny pointed hats?  

 

I believe that the wearing of the Burqa got banned in France.  How many female Muslim terrorists have France got now?  

 

If a ban on wearing the Burqa should be considered, then it needs the Government prior to enforcing any ban talking to the leaders of the Muslim community.  But I think that it is a job for the Home Secretary Sajid Javid to make the decision as to whether to ban or not and if to ban for him to be talking to the leaders of the Muslim community.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The Return of the Ark said:

Whilst I don't totally agree with Boris comments and the word in which they were made, there needs to be a balance of understanding of other religions wherever you are in the world.  

 

I agree that Burqa's as far as I am aware from speaking to friends that are Muslim, is not a religious form of clothing and that you should be able to see the facial features, not just the eyes of the person wearing it.  

 

However, if the Burqa is banned do you then stop Seik's wearing Turban's, Catholic and Church of England priests wearing funny pointed hats?  

 

I believe that the wearing of the Burqa got banned in France.  How many female Muslim terrorists have France got now?  

 

If a ban on wearing the Burqa should be considered, then it needs the Government prior to enforcing any ban talking to the leaders of the Muslim community.  But I think that it is a job for the Home Secretary Sajid Javid to make the decision as to whether to ban or not and if to ban for him to be talking to the leaders of the Muslim community.   

Why should any individual community be consulted regarding a change in the law to make it illegal for anyone to cover their face in a public place? Neither a Turban, kippa or funny pointed hat covers the face of the wearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Augustus said:

Why should any individual community be consulted regarding a change in the law to make it illegal for anyone to cover their face in a public place? Neither a Turban, kippa or funny pointed hat covers the face of the wearer.

Under Enver Hoxha beards were banned in Albania.  Are you suggesting this too?

Or do you require beards to be covered by a Naqib?

Are you suggesting that the Government should never consult anyone, least of all those most likely to be affected, about prospective changes in legislation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JackD said:

Boris Johnson is a liar, a charlatan, and an absolute fool.

 

Hmm..... your typical brother-in-law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

Under Enver Hoxha beards were banned in Albania.  Are you suggesting this too?

Or do you require beards to be covered by a Naqib?

Are you suggesting that the Government should never consult anyone, least of all those most likely to be affected, about prospective changes in legislation?

I don't think governments around the World consulted with drunk drivers before they introduced the breathalyzer in their respective countries.
I don't think shopping centres in the UK consulted with 'hoodies' before they banned hoods from being worn under the Tony Blair regime.

I think you should take Rowlf's advice and take it easy on the weed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now