As an American, if I got cancer like this dude has, having a job there is a very high chance I’d be destitute IF I lived. World class medical treatment off the backs of his subjects… yeahno my dude, worlds smallest violen playing.jpeg
He can wipe his cancer tears up with whatever the largest denomination of pounds you guys use is xD
If you have seen breaking bad, the premise of that show is an apt description. Insurance companies here will often deny you necessary life saving medical treatment for… reasons
Other example: a woman with a family history of breast cancer was denied a doctor recommended mammogram to check on some potentially cancerous lumps because she has… Already had too many mammograms.
Profit incentive in the healthcare industry is no bueno:|
Because insurance pays for a portion of your treatment, rarely 100% of it, and the moment you start racking up bigger bills, insurance starts looking for ways to not pay your claims. They’ll put a hold on payment until you call them and broker a deal or they go back and forth with your doctor demanding that you receive some treatment other than what that doctor recommends.
I have Crohn’s Disease, an autoimmune disorder that is often treated with immunosuppressants. First, they did not want to pay for my initial “loading dose” because it has to be done by infusion. That’s a ~$25,000 procedure (3-4 hours on an IV). I talked them into it by telling them that only the first dose would be by infusion and the rest by self injection.
But when my company decided to pay for a less expensive insurance plan that started at the beginning of the year, they suddenly didn’t want to pay for the injections either. Now I owe 30% of the cost of my injections. That’s almost $4,000 a dose that I take every 8 weeks, about $25,000/year.
So now I use a coupon program through a separate company, and they bill the remainder of the balance to the company who produces the medicine who give me a $21,000 annual credit toward paying the remainder. So now to get my medicine I must coordinate between my doctor, a specialty pharmacy, my insurance provider, a company that runs the coupon program, and the company that produces the medicine… Just to get a syringe delivered to me on a schedule. And the credit probably won’t last until the end of the year; I’ll probably end up shelling out a few thousand for my meds around Christmas time this year.
If any of the complicated web of companies that collectively get me these meds doesn’t have everything lined up in their system, I don’t get my meds. My last dose was almost three weeks late to me because of all the calling around I had to do. Because we don’t have a central health care authority, that means each company maintains their own system of record. Each phone call involves working through a phone tree to get to a human agent, working through the same set of identity verification steps with them, explaining the situation over again to a different person every time…
It’s a real pain in the ass, and they do it on purpose to get you to give up. Having insurance doesn’t mean your health care is paid for, and you pay a premium (hundreds of dollars) on every paycheck to keep the insurance that still doesn’t pay for your medical costs. Having health insurance does not mean you don’t still pay through the teeth for your health care. Having health insurance does not mean that health care is accessible to you. Having insurance that makes health care accessible today does not mean they won’t change the rules behind your back, and that you will still have access to health care tomorrow.
All things considered, their situation is not as bad as it could be. I had a job where one of my duties was to get prior authorizations for every procedure we did in an oncology-focused plastic surgery clinic. The vast majority of the procedures were breast reconstruction following mastectomy and skin cancer excisions. I had an insurance company demand documentation and evidence of medical need to close the incision site after excising the melanoma. They were gracious enough to allow the excision without requiring a prior authorization, but in order for the surgeon to close that incision (or in this particular case, fill in the area with a skin graft because the amount of skin to be removed precluded a simple closure), we had to file a mountain of paperwork on a tight deadline because the procedure couldn’t wait more than a week or so.
I’ve also worked in hospitals, and every hospital I’ve worked in has social workers on staff to help patients line up emergency insurance coverage or financial assistance for emergency medical care. I never actually saw the bills for it, but we treated a kiddo that was a bystander in a drive-by shooting that was transferred to our hospital from another ER so that they could have the pediatric trauma surgeons try to fix his femur. So that’s two top-level ER visits, an ambulance ride, an ICU stay, and probably a bunch of surgeries and associated hospitalizations…because this 2 year old got hit in the leg with a stray bullet. The total almost certainly topped 7 digits. Shit’s fucked, yo.
It’s always a consideration, but the question is where would we move to (and how much am I willing to uproot my family)? Canada is a nice place with a better healthcare system, so maybe there? But that’s expensive all on its own, and I have to consider that I have two autistic kiddos who are currently receiving their education at the best school in the state for special ed kiddos. Is it worth it? Maybe not. For now, I think we should stay where we are. I love it here, except for the high cost of my own care. Think I’d rather stick it out and fight for a better system here. Maybe we can improve things for everyone instead of jumping ship.
And when a president gets COVID he gets drugged up and gets the best treatment on the taxpayers dime. While the people are left with life shattering medical debt.
While these subjects can get medical treatment, for just a fraction, and no debts… Like the king…
So what is your point?
We have been playing the whole sad orchestra for you guys, seeing you push out this attitude like it is a win over something.
The president has an actual job tho??? Like wat lmao 🤣 and if you think the king is getting the same medical treatment as Mr jo British bong water, I have some EU membership to sell you.
And it is not the dig you wish it is. As it portrays even more that anyone in the UK, even those without an actual job, can get medical treatment without fearing massive medical debt.
That’s not addressing my point of… Why is the king receiving preferential treatment? His role is ceremonial. You could make the argument he’s paying for private treatment (I don’t know if he is or not), if he’s not why does he get to skip the NHS cancer treatment wait list? If he is paying for private… What exactly has he personally done to allow him to have the ABILITY to pay for said treatment:| Not saying all the royals wealth should be seized for the peoplez, more why is his families life style still to my understanding being subsidized by British tax payers? The tourism they bring in would still be coming, it’s not like they’re going to sell Buckingham palace if the gov stopped paying for their shit.
Sure, I also wish monarchies are cut of the tax payers spigot.
But why are you making this such a big point of having a rich old white dick getting preferential treatment? I thought you loved that shit in the USA. I thought the AMERICAN dream is to become a rich old white dick to get that sweet preferential (tax) treatment. To get your rich old white children get the same benefits through generational wealth.
Be mad that in the EU people can pay for both a rich old white dude play a monarch and socialized healthcare. While ever time you try and do something similar all the old white dicks crawl out of the woodwork to tell “HoW cAn We EvEr PaY fOr ThAt?!”
But we’re talking about the UK monarchy specifically right? I wonder what the scandanavian monarchs for example are up to. & don’t get me wrong, the American political elite, at least a lot of them cough Republicans cough absolutely have the mentality of neonobility.
That kind of psychology and predisposition is something I hope is stamped out or at least vindicated by most of society. Be the change you want to see in the world:)
The royal family brings in a net positive amount of revenue of you account for receipts from added tourism and spending. The expenses for shipping around the US President for example is another story.
I can’t speak for other tourists, but I don’t need the royals to actually still exist to be interested in seeing their accoutrements strewn about museums and to walk through their former palaces to admire the woodworking and gilding.
I mean, having some water nymph toss a sword at someones feet is at least as good of a justification for governmental power - and if I’m honest, a better one at that.
It’s like 40% more creative than “I have all the money and the big boogey man in the sky said I have the right to reign supreme - who are you to question God?”
Yeah the news and world news subs really took a tumble of late. I came for some modicum of intellectual debate, but it’s a shame how quickly that derails.
I kind of think you’d have a different tune if this were Putin to be honest, wanna talk about why? In my mind, all of the appeals to civility are just status quo worship veiled in “human decency” that 1) doesn’t consider the good that would be brought to the world by his passing and 2) isn’t extended to anyone outside of the status quo power structure.
for this guy, who leeches off the work of real human beings and hides child rapists from justice? absolutely, my hate for him is a source of strength and pride, I’m glad to have it on display.
Totally out of the loop on UK royalty, because they’re basically just a medieval version of the Kardashians that’s hung around waaaaay too long.
I was under the impression that the monarchy’s power was predicated on their right to rule being divine, which could only be maintained by keeping their bloodline inbred pure.
I wouldn’t say he is German, but German dynasties have sit on the British throne since George I was crowned in 1714. Up till queen Victoria all monarchs belonged to the house of Hanover. Victoria married Albert of house Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and their son Edward VII was counted as the member of that dynasty. Edward’s son George V changed their surname to “Windsor” in 1917.
And i imagine that the house of Saxony which part house Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is, is pretty inbred since basically every surviving european noble today is either part of it or closely related.
Queen Victoria is from the House of Hanover and Prince Albert is from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The British royal family changed their house to Windsor during WWI because the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha sounded too German.
If you’re going by just family ancestry, Charles III is mostly German. Here’s me after wasting time on Wikipedia:
Thank you for the hardcore wiki linking - sincerely, I appreciate the labor you put into this reply.
C3 is a certified Deutsch.
Wild that they could just… Change their house like that. “Oh all that family lineage and history, no, no the name sounds quite too much like those jerries - the peasants won’t like it much - what now? yes yes, Windsor we are, always have been, chip cheerio - get in the trench my good chap, and fight my former brethren, I mean those awful germans.”
I’m begging liberals to remember the one cool thing they ever did, which was chopping off their monarchs’ heads, and commit to that. Just that. Come on now, this is an argument that’s been solved for like 200 years now: monarchs and aristocrats are dogshit and deserve to be forcibly removed from their positions of wealth and authority.
Please for the love of anything you love stop crying for monarchists and bring back the guillotine. For FUCKS SAKE YOU’RE LITERALLY THINKING LIKE A MIDDLE AGES SERF. GOD EMPEROR SHIT RIGHT HERE
If any of you fucking liberals ever say ANYTHING about communist countries having cults of personality I’m going to haul ass and personally take shits inside your house that will leave you confused for years to come
He is the monarch of a state currently bombing Yemen in an attempt to stop their blockade of supplies, military and otherwise, to Isreal. Yes, he is assisting in the genocide of Gaza.
Good, but it kinda ticks me off the he gets to serve this sentence at the same time he’s seeing a 3-year for the civil rights conviction… like rather than 8 years, it maxes out at 5, and that’s some bullshit.
All four former police officers involved in the incident were convicted on federal civil rights charges, in addition to state murder charges for Mr Chauvin. Ex-officers Thomas Lane and J Alexander Kueng pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter. Thao, who was sentenced to three and a half years over his civil rights conviction, will serve the 57 months at the same time.
Is there a way to jump instances and bring all your content/moderation with you? I really didn’t sign up for tankie voat, but I have growing communities in this instance.
Unfortunately not right now, maybe in the future. You can make the community on the new instance, stop all posting on the old one and pin a link to the new one so users are forced over, but that might not work and you could lose a largish portion of your userbase.
The term tankie comes from the 1956 hungarian revolution/counter-revoluton (depending on who you ask) which split the British communist party, those that supported the Soviet Union suppressing it with the military were called tankies.
The video of the man in front of the tank column related to the June 4th incident did not result in the man standing in front of the tank dying, and those tanks were leaving the area where the violence occurred and is not where the word tankie comes from like I believe you are suggesting.
No, I was suggesting that tankie came to describe USSR supporters (which modern apologists project onto Russia, as if the wall never fell). I am aware of the origin of the term.
My comment was a reply on people supporting whatever Russia and China do. It takes a jab at both.
No, I was suggesting that tankie came to describe USSR supporters
No, it started that way? Do you mean started to be more all encompassing? I literally explained the origin of the term one comment ago. Also, I dont see how this
" Imagine thinking Chinese workers own the means of production, or not even knowing where the term “tankie” comes from. "
-can mean what you say you meant.
(which modern apologists project onto Russia, as if the wall never fell).
Anyone who has researched the USSR enough to cut through capitalist propaganda knows Russia is now a neolib-ish bourgeois democracy.
No, it started that way? Do you mean started to be more all encompassing?
So, didn’t the term come to describe people who support the USSR imperialist practices by rolling into countries with tanks?
Anyone who has researched the USSR enough to cut through capitalist propaganda knows Russia is now a neolib-ish bourgeois democracy.
Have you ever seen anything written by the average lemmy tankie? They will defend Russia because it’s not the US.
If the US invades a middle eastern country because of “terrorists”, the true motive is oil (which I don’t disagree with). But if Russia invades Ukraine because they could potentially become a competitor petrol state in Europe more aligned with the EU, then it’s actually “nazis”.
Have you ever seen anything written by the average lemmy tankie? They will defend Russia because it’s not the US.
No, they will defend Russia’s actions because they understand the lead up to the war. The coup, the ceasefire violations, the waves of ethnically russian ukrainian refugees. And because they understand that the west expending itself on unfavorable terms is good for multipolarity and for the people the west would have otherwise used those weapons on.
Taking this at face value, that is still extremely different from “defend Russia because they believe in the intrinsic merit of the Soviet project” as you suggested before. The liberal mobsters who took over Russia tried to join the NATO club but were rejected, and the current situation is in many respects a consequence of that.
Imperialism is the final stage of capitalism. Finance capitalism takes over from industrial capitalism and seeks out markets abroad, having exhausted the internal ones. It teams up with other finance capitalism to become a global force, the export of capital becomes the most prominent feature of the economy rather than the export of raw materials or finished goods. The states they come from tend to become fascist in nature, or as some people put it, “fascism is imperialism turned inward”.
Even if China was a capitalist country as some people claim, it still wouldn’t be at that stage yet. Russia might wish to one day be there, but it too has a long way to go.
Because you need to get to imperialism via capitalism.
Socialism’s goal is to provide for its people; in theory, why can’t it engage in colonialism to bring in resources to benefit its people?
There is definitely no other way.
Its obvious how capitalism leads to imperialism, but it’s definitely not obvious how that would be the only way to arrive there.
Any elaboration you can provide would be great because you’re acting as if it should be obvious why what you’re saying is true but it absolutely is not.
Socialism’s goal is to provide for its people by moving past a society based on exploitation. This is why it wouldn’t engage in colonialism.
I think you’d need a different word to use to describe your socialist-colonialist state. Imperialism doesn’t mean, “when you invade”.
Imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism where finance capitalists export capital rather than commodities and these capitalists become the most dominant.
There’s many different capitalist interest groups, but one is by far the most powerful and dominant in global politics, the finance capitalists. This group of capitalists always come to dominate over all others, most capitalists require access to financial capital to expand their businesses, or to weather difficult circumstances in the marketplace. Financial capitalists gradually gain control of all industries through being able to see the movements of each industry and by them being the spider in the web, put simplistically. Then when they’ve run out of domestic exploitative growth opportunities they reach out beyond their borders and team up with other financial capitalists through mergers etc. This is imperialism, the final stage of capitalism. All capitalism eventually ends up here. Russia will too, but not yet.
The major capitalist interest group in opposition to the finance capitalists are the always losing group of industrial / national capitalists. These are private owners of domestic industries who mainly derive most of their profits from operating within the borders of a particular country (or the EU or whatever). Donald Trump would be an example of one of these, and he’d be in political alignment with many other industrial capitalists, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates… “industry leaders”. Their politics tend to be libertarian in nature, the social conservative aspect of their politics is just a front they put up to gain the electoral support of naïve socially-conservative people and exploit them. They don’t really care about religion or guns or anything like that. They usually like traditionalism because it provides them with a reliable exploitable source of labour. They would have opposed women in the workplace until they realised they could exploit them too without risk. Same with LGBTQ+ stuff, they used to be opposed but are now less so. They still are in Russia, indicating their capitalist immaturity. The western capitalists have grown beyond this stuff to some extent. A lot of conservative politics comes from this group. The Finance capitalists are less well known. You know the names of many western finance companies but probably not nearly as many outside the west.
Russia is an example of a country emerging from a primitive stage of capitalism that stands opposed to western financial imperialism. They are largely in control of their economy and government after western financial capitalists pillaged Russian industry after the fall of the USSR. This is upsetting to western finance capitalists, who desperately want to destabilise Russia and would love to install a government that is friendly to western finance so they can pillage it again. it slipped out of their grasp with Putin after Iraq, they want it back.
It’s western finance capitalist imperialism versus Russian industrial capitalism. Putin is the Russian industrial capitalist’s thug godfather. If any of the oligarchs step out of line and try to sell out mother Russia, they’ll find themselves defenestrated quick sharp. If he falls then they all need to quickly put someone else in place to rule over them and protect them from each other. If the US gets a foot in the door again they’re all fucked. It’s constantly knocking.
Russia’s industrial capitalists have already been raped by the US twice before now, they trust Putin as their administrator. He lets them do what they want as long as they don’t fuck over Russia. He’s a dictator, but one that prioritises a strong and functional Russia over one that collapses to be strip-mined and sold off by NATO capitalists. Given the lack of real alternatives (the Communist party was outlawed for a time), Putin has clearly been the only real option for Russians for most of the past two decades. They will not be pillaged a third time, hence this completely predictable Ukraine reaction they’d hoped for after constant provocations, the last one being the Nazi led coup and overthrow of Ukraine’s democracy by the Right Sector Nazis and others. The one thought experiment that no lib can answer is what the USA would do it the shoe was on the other foot and Russia was arming nutcases in Mexico.
You’re hearing “imperialism” a lot right now because it’s been inserted into the discourse as a wildcard term to con people into explaining away the motivations behind Russia’s invasion, instantly dismissing thought of all of NATO’s provocations. It would probably take Russia decades more to become Imperialist, maybe I’m wrong, maybe it would take less time but it’s not now, and “imperialism” is not the reason for the invasion by a long stretch.
I don’t think you’re doing a very good job of attempting to answer the very direct confusion I’m having. You’re doing a lot to make sure it’s obvious how capitalism can and does result in imperialism, which frankly I’m mostly in agreement with. My issue is that you’re asserting that socialism can’t lead to imperialism. You’ve still given no reason that this is to be the case except for this attempt:
Socialism’s goal is to provide for its people by moving past a society based on exploitation. This is why it wouldn’t engage in colonialism.
And I agree that, by definition, it’s a society based on the betterment of its people. Stress should be applied there to its people. I’m not justifying imperialism at all, but it’s a pretty obvious argument that by subjugating other nations/peoples and exploiting them, you can make the lives of your people better. Perhaps you’re trying to say that the type of leadership and ideology that creates and maintains socialism would also be ideologically against imperialism, but that seems more pragmatic than theoretic. You’re saying socialism can’t engage in imperialism by definition but the most I’d give is that it doesn’t engage in imperialism in practice.
That guy has zero interest in being persuaded, he was just trolling and trying to waste my time. I’d already replied in detail and he pretended not to understand.
Because you need to get to imperialism via capitalism. There is definitively no other way.
You have more than zero point, but this is an excessively modernist way of viewing development that Marx explicitly refutes in his later writings after facing spurious accusations of supporting such views.
Thank you, I’ll look at that. It might be my misunderstanding of a technical term, but I don’t see the logical sequence that makes it apparent that socialist countries can’t engage in imperialism/colonialism.
The very short answer is that imperialism requires very specific economic systems and incentives. Those systems are not going to occur in socialist States because socialist States develop different economic systems than capitalism because the profit motive is absent, which impacts short term and long term economic development plans in many significant ways. For an extreme example look at Juche’s emphasis on self reliant socialism within an internationalist socialist order. They cannot do imperialism because all of their economic planning is built around a stable self sufficient economy. An extractivist economy isn’t just something you can graft on, it has to be a central part of an economy to make economic sense.
For an example of socialism not being imperialist when it has the opportunity to, you can look at China forgiving loans. It doesn’t do so out if the charity of its heart, it does so because it is incentivized to because damaging other nations self determination through financial coercion actively harms its project. It wants strong neighbors with close economic ties, it doesn’t want to suck the marrow out of their bones because that is destructive to China in the long term, and socialism is able to plan in the long term unlike capitalism which has to be more short term oriented because of the way its incentives function.
Imperialism is actually a very costly affair (in many cases it costs the home country and only benefits specific lobbyists within that country) compared to mutual cooperation and always rebounds on empire, it only happens because of market failures that do not happen under socialism.
They’re saying if Communists do it, it’s not Imperialism even if it looks exactly the same.
They are willfully committing an equivocation fallacy, using their definition of “Imperialism” as being necessarily related to Capitalism. The textbook definition of Imperialism does NOT necessarily relate to capitalism, so you are indeed in the right.
a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force. -Imperialism
A non-capitalist country most certainly can do that definition. And Russian and China have both done that quite unambiguously.
So you’re in the right. But you’ll never win an argument against them because lies are truth.
These are Leninists who believe that socialism cannot do imperialism because socialism is ideological manifest destiny. Nevermind that this was more or less one of the original debates between Trotsky and Lenin on how do do “global communism.”
They like to redefine words to carry whatever ideological weight they want, because it’s much easier than introspection. Like how they will carry the “Nazi means anti-Russian” banner to unironically defend mass deportation children from Ukraine. "Obviously it can’t be the UN definition of genocide, because you can’t genocide Nazis.
I don’t think sex is a reward for the man in most relationships. That’s not how it works. Marital relationships are much more complicated than that and very varied.
Do you really think life is this simple? What I see is men do things that they were taught to do to funcion in a given society, things they need to do to survive, things they like doing just for themselves (a very good motivation) and occasionally also things to look good in front of women (not necessarilly theirs). I think in most marriages men display a mixture of behaviours the woman likes and dislikes (sometimes even hates). Despite doing things the woman hates, a man can still often have sex with her either because she also sees the good things, she wants sex and is willing to overlook the bad things or she has no power to choose otherwise… life is really complicated. If men did only things women liked, the world would be completely different.
I mean, at the end of the day the wives either approve of their husbands actions and reward them or don’t. To them, it’s better to be with a man who gets paid to kill little girls than one that doesn’t. That’s why they’re with them, lol.
Yeah, it really is that simple. Sorry you’re trying to overcomplicate things.
I think your ‘oversimplicity’ argument would hold more water against those saying it’s just the men of iran who are to blame.
If an advanced civilization developed the technology for interstellar travel, and came all this way to earth, I suspect one of 2 things will happen. Either their tech is so advanced that we won’t even detect them, or they show up ready to communicate or destroy us.
I can’t see them clumsily flying around, getting seen and whooshing off like some dumb teenagers playing ding-dong-ditch.
They travel thousands of light years just to pick up some ding dong and toss him back. I just picture a grey little alien dropping off a hillbilly after a solid butt probin’ with a finger over his mouth uttering, “Shhhh! No one will believe you.”
I mean if you look at it like *observe and don’t interact" then it makes a lot of sense why the craft keep going into the ocean. It’s the best place on earth to hide and you can get anywhere on the planet that way.
It amuses me that they get caught on VHS flying around clumsily, but no one’s ever seen anything out in space. How did they get into the atmosphere? Not one telescope on the planet can spot ships flying towards the planet
You implied we could see everything with telescopes, we can’t even see everything with the tech nasa employs.
Maybe, maybe not, doesn’t change the fact that we’ve missed lots of stuff that’s hit or missed earth despite your asinine claim we don’t miss anything.
Also: for a civilization advanced enough for interstellar travel to want to destroy us is unlikely. The universe is filled with resources. We pose no threat and don’t really have anything special.
I’m starting to think they’re inter dimensional, not extra terrestrial. Google what would a human in 4d look like to us, and it sounds just like the descriptions of angels in the Bible. Our brain just glitching out and seeing them as a mess of eyeballs and appendages. They can pop in and out of our reality, seemingly out of nowhere.
I don’t get why everyone was always assuming ‘alien’ vs “time travelers.”
The interest in Earth, general similarity to our own tech but more advanced, coupled with non-intervention makes a lot more sense under those conditions than aliens.
The better wording might be ‘British registered ship attacked by Houthi fighters, damaged and may sink’ or something. It’s very deliberately proving that the Houthi propaganda around its sinking is incorrect. That’s not copium, it’s news.
No, I’m looking at the images and thinking that it’s not sunk. Which is what the Houthis are saying it was. Which is what the article is proving false. Which, again, is news not ‘copium’.
It doesn’t necessarily need to be sinking. It could have some sections flooded and not sink anymore… But yeah it’s a bit of nitpick…specially if the boat it’s stuck and cannot be moved by itself, which is the case here and while towing it it could eventually sink if some stuff continues to break or similar.
In case anyone was wondering, Canada asked if we would still have protection if Russia invaded. Trump basically said we can go fuck ourselves. That should tell everyone everything you needed to know about Trump: HE’S. A. RUSSIAN. ASSET.
Tucker is our most famous right-winger. That’s basically it. He can say whatever the hell he wants, due to our first amendment, which protects both freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This includes a freedom to willfully lie, unfortunately, unless one has been placed under oath.
But it shouldn’t allow him to call what he does “news” or “journalism”. Him, and others like him, should have bumpers before and after every segment that says “the views expressed are purely the opinion of the host and do not necessarily reflect reality or facts” and not at the breakneck speed they used to do those car dealer and drug commercial disclaimers.
bbc.co.uk
Top