New Club Social Media Policy Results in 2 Bans

BFC1997

Active member
Joined
12 Feb 2011
Messages
8,710
Reaction score
630
Location
Osterley
From what i understand, it was pretty extreme. Most people know where the line is, but if you make it explicit, you're inviting people to try out how close they can get to the line...
To me it must be very difficult to police language without making it explicit.
 

kaebess

Active member
Joined
5 Jan 2013
Messages
2,185
Reaction score
49
Location
Bognor Regis
The club has proved its self on so many fronts previously . I’m in the camp of trusting the club on this, them looking after everyone’s best interests long term.

if proved otherwise then I am sure the same people will be big enough to apologise, improve and get it right going forward.

it needs to be dealt with.

As a side note, I’m not on Twitter, is the big man himself still choosing to abstain ?
 

Isleworth_Bee

Well-known member
Joined
18 Jan 2005
Messages
22,481
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Basingstoke
It’s not just me, it’s the message it sends out to everyone else.

Again, it’s supposed to be a deterrent. The wider Brentford community are supposed to see this and realise that they must behave a certain way when representing the club. Otherwise why make a statement at all? If you’re going to dish out bans publicly then justify it. Make sure people know where the line is.
Isnt that what the COC is for
 

BFC1997

Active member
Joined
12 Feb 2011
Messages
8,710
Reaction score
630
Location
Osterley
You think the club should publish an offensive tweet that has caused Twitter themselves to remove the account involved?

I am perfectly happy to believe that the club have behaved proportionality and reasonably in this matter. If there is a role in ensuring that "justice has been done" then it is probably for BIAS to ask the club to run them through the decision process?
Yes, it sounds like something BIAS should be involved in.
 

Isleworth_Bee

Well-known member
Joined
18 Jan 2005
Messages
22,481
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Basingstoke
The only side of the story we have is that from the person’s tweet, and if that is correct he’s been punished for calling someone a “nonce” on twitter under a pseudonym. Kid yourself if you like, but objectively that is harsh.

It’s dangerous to hand out bans for things like this. Maybe the intentions are good - but by being so extreme you will not stamp out unwanted behaviour but actually exacerbate it. In 2021 it’s very easy to create new alt, anon accounts on social media that are untraceable to an individual. VPNs, Proton Mail etc. These accounts are disposable and bans aren’t effective. There are many such accounts in the BFC Twittersphere and from these accounts far worse than the word “nonce” can be posted.

Perhaps there is more context that shows the behaviour of those banned in a more damning light. But we don’t know, because the club have decided against sharing what triggered the ban. So instead, it just comes across like they’re being heavy handed policing social media. That doesn’t ‘educate’ anybody and just scares people into taking their discussions into anonymous circles.
I dont think its harsh at all. And yes social media is very tough to police but if it makes 90-99% (just plucking numbers) of Bees fans who use social media think about what they post especially in times of anger then its working IMO. They will then try their best to police the other 1-10% who feel its their right to throw words like "nonce" around social media whilst linking it to the name BFC.

A few might slip through the net but at least they are trying something. The reaction and Tweet since shows that person for what they are and the club are 100% better off without those people.
 

Mr Tree

Brentford's premier GIF creator
Joined
28 Apr 2000
Messages
34,733
Reaction score
284
Location
Czech Republic
To me it must be very difficult to police language without making it explicit.
It's a really silly point to make, for me. They have an explicit and transparent policy, but some of it has to be discretionary - they can't literally say "three ****s and you're out"
 

BFC1997

Active member
Joined
12 Feb 2011
Messages
8,710
Reaction score
630
Location
Osterley
It's a really silly point to make, for me. They have an explicit and transparent policy, but some of it has to be discretionary - they can't literally say "three ****s and you're out"
Of course, but they can make an example of those that actually get banned.
 

Mr Tree

Brentford's premier GIF creator
Joined
28 Apr 2000
Messages
34,733
Reaction score
284
Location
Czech Republic
Of course, but they can make an example of those that actually get banned.
Again very difficult, because you're asking them to publicize the reprehensible views that they don't want to be associated with. Tricky line to tread.
 

jlove

Well-known member
Joined
17 Dec 2002
Messages
34,003
Reaction score
1,428
Location
Vaison-la-Romaine
The club's guidelines are extremely clear to me, and include:
We will investigate all complaints or conduct directly involving the Club on a case by case basis if the post/s (in the Club’s sole judgement):
  1. Seriously and directly contravenes our Club’s values,
  2. Does so in a way which we believe will or could bring the Club into disrepute, and
  3. Can be reasonably identified as originating from known supporters of the Club
Personally, I don't think there's any need for an autopsy.
 

westendbee

Member
Joined
12 Dec 2012
Messages
436
Reaction score
82
I’m more than happy for the “no dickheads” policy to apply to supporters just as much as to the playing staff...
 

rebus

Chin Laden
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
25,622
Reaction score
920
Location
Leytonstone / Ilford
Of course, but they can make an example of those that actually get banned.
You can keep digging all you like. They haven’t been made an example of. The news release made clear that more investigations will follow on other fans.

Does the reaction to the ban by one of them on twitter clearly state to you that this not someone that’s got out of the bed the wrong side that day, downed a few pints and typed something they shouldn’t as a one off. It’s a sustained pattern of behaviour.
 

The Pipe

Active member
Joined
7 Feb 2005
Messages
9,731
Reaction score
656
Location
churchinford Devon
I really don’t see what the issue is, act in an inappropriate manner and face the consequences if it falls foul of the clubs code of contact. Do the crime: Do the time

I also don’t see any reason why things should be made public which will only result in argument as to the severity of the punishment
 

Ealing Bee

Well-known member
Joined
5 Jun 2002
Messages
10,174
Reaction score
923
Location
Now Chiswick (proud to be a YIMBY)
In 2021 it’s very easy to create new alt, anon accounts on social media that are untraceable to an individual. VPNs, Proton Mail etc. These accounts are disposable and bans aren’t effective. There are many such accounts in the BFC Twittersphere and from these accounts far worse than the word “nonce” can be posted.
True enough, except the club isn't seeking to police/regulate the internet.

What they've done is ban some individuals from attending matches, after they posted unacceptable material capable of bringing the club into disrepute.

Of course those individuals can resume posting crap as you say, and there's nothing much the club can do to stop them. But now they (and we) know that they'll not be polluting the new stadium anytime soon.

And I suspect that if you were to conduct a poll of BFC fans, the overwhelming majority would be delighted with that.
 

beesbees_bfc

Member
Joined
3 Jun 2008
Messages
871
Reaction score
318
I’m more than happy for the “no dickheads” policy to apply to supporters just as much as to the playing staff...
Can’t agree with that, I don’t need to worry about the new social media policy as I’m not racist, homophobic etc but I’m pretty sure many people would think I’m a dick head so don’t want to risk losing my season ticket over that!

And I wouldn’t be alone
 

hairman

Active member
Joined
19 Mar 2008
Messages
5,326
Reaction score
214
Their stadium, their rules. Same as any boozer. There’s a difference between stating a considered opinion and just typing out “nonce” when you don’t agree with something.

It’s quite simple: call it the rule of Hester. If some group of fans think those pair of racists have been really hard done by (ie: caught out) then there aren’t the sort of people the club wants.

You could argue the club are doing what the social media companies should have been taking on years ago.
Paraphrasing Brad Pitt's character Aldo Raine in Inglorious Basterds. 'I like to know where my Nazis are' The right to freedom of speech extends to everyone. I'd rather know what they're thinking and feeling as opposed to their disguising it.
 

rebus

Chin Laden
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
25,622
Reaction score
920
Location
Leytonstone / Ilford
Paraphrasing Brad Pitt's character Aldo Raine in Inglorious Basterds. 'I like to know where my Nazis are' The right to freedom of speech extends to everyone. I'd rather know what they're thinking and feeling as opposed to their disguising it.
There is no such thing as freedom of speech without accepting the consequences.

They are at liberty to keep tweeting whatever they want but it’s likely to mean they can’t attend Brentford games.
 

unBEEliveable

Active member
Joined
19 Jul 2006
Messages
2,907
Reaction score
351
Location
Thame, Oxon
There is no such thing as freedom of speech without accepting the consequences.

They are at liberty to keep tweeting whatever they want but it’s likely to mean they can’t attend Brentford games.
Exactly and if their right to exercise their freedom of speech means the chances of my daughter and I sitting next to a racist/sexist/misogynist/homophobe/etc is greatly reduced then I thank the club for their efforts.
 

hairman

Active member
Joined
19 Mar 2008
Messages
5,326
Reaction score
214
There is no such thing as freedom of speech without accepting the consequences.

They are at liberty to keep tweeting whatever they want but it’s likely to mean they can’t attend Brentford games.
I don't disagree at all. Just saying I'd rather know where they are so that I can avoid them, disagree with them or punch them. As I see fit at the time, of course.
 

Adam

Active member
Joined
16 Jan 2004
Messages
4,776
Reaction score
151
Location
Camberley
Can the club spell it out anymore? Do some actually believe Kick It Out, an anti-racism charity, have reached out to the club about 2 fans calling someone a ‘nonce’ and put them on a re-education course?

Unless K.I.O. have recently veered into a new niche defending erroneously accused nonces, I think we can safely assume the guilty parties were racially abusing their victims.
 

rebus

Chin Laden
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
25,622
Reaction score
920
Location
Leytonstone / Ilford
I don't disagree at all. Just saying I'd rather know where they are so that I can avoid them, disagree with them or punch them. As I see fit at the time, of course.
Most of it is done on locked accounts but they eventually hang themselves, digitally speaking.
 

hobbsy

Optimist
Joined
23 Apr 2005
Messages
16,508
Reaction score
624
Location
KT3 New Malden
Can the club spell it out anymore? Do some actually believe Kick It Out, an anti-racism charity, have reached out to the club about 2 fans calling someone a ‘nonce’ and put them on a re-education course?

Unless K.I.O. have recently veered into a new niche defending erroneously accused nonces, I think we can safely assume the guilty parties were racially abusing their victims.
Are KIO directly involved in this case?
 

Adam

Active member
Joined
16 Jan 2004
Messages
4,776
Reaction score
151
Location
Camberley
OP
Banana

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
73,092
Reaction score
3,649
Location
London
Can the club spell it out anymore? Do some actually believe Kick It Out, an anti-racism charity, have reached out to the club about 2 fans calling someone a ‘nonce’ and put them on a re-education course?

Unless K.I.O. have recently veered into a new niche defending erroneously accused nonces, I think we can safely assume the guilty parties were racially abusing their victims.
It's all forms of discrimination that fall under the social media policy, not just racism.

Here's the relevant part from the Social Media Policy:

the Club will consider taking action against individuals or groups who produce or disseminate social media posts that contravene the Club’s policies, particularly our Diversity & Inclusion Policy. We will investigate all complaints or conduct directly involving the Club on a case by case basis if the post/s (in the Club’s sole judgement):
  1. Seriously and directly contravenes our Club’s values,
  2. Does so in a way which we believe will or could bring the Club into disrepute, and
  3. Can be reasonably identified as originating from known supporters of the Club
And here's the relevant part of the Diversity & Inclusion Policy
  • We have zero-tolerance towards discriminatory language, abuse, chanting and behaviour of any kind.
  • We expect our community to behave towards others in a manner consistent with principles of fairness, respect and tolerance.
  • We find hateful behaviour based on any form of discrimination wholly unacceptable.
  • We don’t want you at Brentford FC if you can’t accept that, or if you behave in a manner that is incompatible with these values.
The emphasis is mine

From doing some digging around, it seems that one of the tweets involved took the club's original "Welcome Vitaly" tweet and then photoshopped him dressed in a Nazi uniform then (just in case you didn't realise it was a Nazi uniform ) added a swastika. All these with the club's branding clearly visible. I would probably concur with the club that that directly involves the club under the above policy.
 

Adam

Active member
Joined
16 Jan 2004
Messages
4,776
Reaction score
151
Location
Camberley
It's all forms of discrimination that fall under the social media policy, not just racism.

Here's the relevant part from the Social Media Policy:

the Club will consider taking action against individuals or groups who produce or disseminate social media posts that contravene the Club’s policies, particularly our Diversity & Inclusion Policy. We will investigate all complaints or conduct directly involving the Club on a case by case basis if the post/s (in the Club’s sole judgement):
  1. Seriously and directly contravenes our Club’s values,
  2. Does so in a way which we believe will or could bring the Club into disrepute, and
  3. Can be reasonably identified as originating from known supporters of the Club
And here's the relevant part of the Diversity & Inclusion Policy
  • We have zero-tolerance towards discriminatory language, abuse, chanting and behaviour of any kind.
  • We expect our community to behave towards others in a manner consistent with principles of fairness, respect and tolerance.
  • We find hateful behaviour based on any form of discrimination wholly unacceptable.
  • We don’t want you at Brentford FC if you can’t accept that, or if you behave in a manner that is incompatible with these values.
The emphasis is mine

From doing some digging around, it seems that one of the tweets involved took the club's original "Welcome Vitaly" tweet and then photoshopped him dressed in a Nazi uniform then (just in case you didn't realise it was a Nazi uniform ) added a swastika. All these with the club's branding clearly visible. I would probably concur with the club that that directly involves the club under the above policy.
I was referring to Kick It Out’s direct involvement in this specific case, rather than the clubs social media policy. If, as the accused suggested, they have just called someone a ‘nonce’ then K.I.O. would be nowhere near this. Therefore, people complaining the punishment was harsh for ‘simply’ calling someone a nonce should have just read the club article a bit better.

I think the description of the abuse you have given justifies both K.I.O.’s involvement and the bans handed out.
 

pompeybee

Active member
Joined
28 Mar 2005
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
217
Location
Wareham, Dorset
Can the club spell it out anymore? Do some actually believe Kick It Out, an anti-racism charity, have reached out to the club about 2 fans calling someone a ‘nonce’ and put them on a re-education course?

Unless K.I.O. have recently veered into a new niche defending erroneously accused nonces, I think we can safely assume the guilty parties were racially abusing their victims.
Kick It Out's remit is broader than racism:

'A small independent charity, the ‘Let’s Kick Racism Out of Football’ campaign was established in 1993 in response to widespread calls from clubs, players and fans to tackle racist attitudes existing within the game. Kick It Out was then established as a body in 1997 as it widened out its objectives to cover all aspects of discrimination, inequality and exclusion.'

(From their website.)
 
OP
Banana

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
73,092
Reaction score
3,649
Location
London
Can the club spell it out anymore? Do some actually believe Kick It Out, an anti-racism charity, have reached out to the club about 2 fans calling someone a ‘nonce’ and put them on a re-education course?

Unless K.I.O. have recently veered into a new niche defending erroneously accused nonces, I think we can safely assume the guilty parties were racially abusing their victims.
My point was that your assertion here could be incorrect and we cannot "safely assume" what the particular discrimination committed was. There are plenty of other unacceptable discriminatory behaviours beyond race.
 

Adam

Active member
Joined
16 Jan 2004
Messages
4,776
Reaction score
151
Location
Camberley
Kick It Out's remit is broader than racism:

'A small independent charity, the ‘Let’s Kick Racism Out of Football’ campaign was established in 1993 in response to widespread calls from clubs, players and fans to tackle racist attitudes existing within the game. Kick It Out was then established as a body in 1997 as it widened out its objectives to cover all aspects of discrimination, inequality and exclusion.'

(From their website.)
My point was that your assertion here could be incorrect and we cannot "safely assume" what the particular discrimination committed was. There are plenty of other unacceptable discriminatory behaviours beyond race.
Very true, although I think other forms of discrimination would likely see a different third party involved. Either way, I don’t think they are approaching football clubs and offering re-education courses for just calling someone a nonce. 😁
 

FlyBee

Active member
Joined
29 Apr 2007
Messages
5,877
Reaction score
63
Exactly and if their right to exercise their freedom of speech means the chances of my daughter and I sitting next to a racist/sexist/misogynist/homophobe/etc is greatly reduced then I thank the club for their efforts.
My thoughts exactly. Although judging by one or two responses on this thread sadly there are a few still kicking around you need to look out for.
 

FlyBee

Active member
Joined
29 Apr 2007
Messages
5,877
Reaction score
63
I have not seen responses to justify that label. I have seen after the initial diatribe some clear and reasoned discussion.
Fair enough, we're all entitled to our own thoughts. For the vast majority I agree with you.
 

BFC1997

Active member
Joined
12 Feb 2011
Messages
8,710
Reaction score
630
Location
Osterley
My thoughts exactly. Although judging by one or two responses on this thread sadly there are a few still kicking around you need to look out for.
The implication being that you think there are posters on this thread that are racist/sexist/misogynist/homophobe/etc?

Some labels to throw around without any justification.
 

FlyBee

Active member
Joined
29 Apr 2007
Messages
5,877
Reaction score
63
The implication being that you think there are posters on this thread that are racist/sexist/misogynist/homophobe/etc?

Some labels to throw around without any justification.
I've no desire to dig out any particular poster, but there was a comment made about mental health that I found objectionable in this thread. So there's my justification.

But hey, thats just my thoughts. Everyone is entitled to theirs and this will just become a cul-de-sac from the main discussion point, upon which I believe the vast majority are aligned.
 

Vid

Active member
Joined
30 Sep 2013
Messages
4,312
Reaction score
822
Location
In the shed.
I've no desire to dig out any particular poster, but there was a comment made about mental health that I found objectionable in this thread. So there's my justification.
It might be me ? " Well I think you're a ****ing nonce and I hope your kids die in a car crash. " It's just words. They don't hurt me or effect my "mental health" (todays buzz words)."
If it is me , sorry you found it objectionable. Not sure how it got lumped in with being racist/sexist/misogynist/homophobe/etc . "Sticks and stones etc." I'm not offended.
As to my view on the Brentford F.C. ban for photoshopping a Nazi uniform on Vitaly Janelt with sponsors trademarks. I agree. The Nazi party are the ultimate racists. It's also about context as Prince Harry and Freddie Star found out.
 

JCMcBee

Active member
Joined
19 Apr 2013
Messages
9,416
Reaction score
288
....there are differences in how this type of stuff impacts on BFCs image...and how it impacts on the person(s) it is aimed at....I often think reading this thread....these two things get mixed up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vid

'Ayes B

Active member
Joined
29 Dec 2000
Messages
6,298
Reaction score
147
Location
Hayes, MIDDLESEX
At the end of the day we should all be nice to each other.

We should respect our differences (including opinions) what ever they maybe and be nice to each other. Its really that simple.

There is no need for name calling, certainly not wishing death or ill health. All 'ism's' dont belong.

If we identify ourselves as Brentford fans then we associate ourselves with the club and as we are careful who we associate ourselves with, the club should be careful with whom they are associated.

Hopefully minor first time let downs will be met with a friendly warning but if the line is crossed to far then the club should take further appropriate action.

We would disassociate ourselves from bullying our friends and the club are right to do the same
 

mhead bee

Well-known member
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
25,496
Reaction score
1,542
Location
Maidenhead
It's a really silly point to make, for me. They have an explicit and transparent policy, but some of it has to be discretionary - they can't literally say "three ****s and you're out"
I have never given two so I will be fine.
 

FlyBee

Active member
Joined
29 Apr 2007
Messages
5,877
Reaction score
63
It might be me ? " Well I think you're a ****ing nonce and I hope your kids die in a car crash. " It's just words. They don't hurt me or effect my "mental health" (todays buzz words)."
If it is me , sorry you found it objectionable. Not sure how it got lumped in with being racist/sexist/misogynist/homophobe/etc . "Sticks and stones etc." I'm not offended.
As to my view on the Brentford F.C. ban for photoshopping a Nazi uniform on Vitaly Janelt with sponsors trademarks. I agree. The Nazi party are the ultimate racists. It's also about context as Prince Harry and Freddie Star found out.
The comment "today's buzz word" suggested that the impact on mental health is somehow not authentic, or made up, or the fault of the person experiencing it.

Hopefully that's not what you meant.

I'm glad it doesn't affect you.
 

GlasgowBee

Knows **** all about anything
Joined
12 Apr 2000
Messages
5,952
Reaction score
156
Location
Gartham Lock (People's Republic of)
The comment "today's buzz word" suggested that the impact on mental health is somehow not authentic, or made up, or the fault of the person experiencing it.

Hopefully that's not what you meant.

I'm glad it doesn't affect you.
To my fellow Bees, we all have mental health as we all have physical health. Sometimes it is in good shape and sometimes it is not. Aside from the mental illnesses such as Schizophrenia, none of us are "econs", we are all human and thus one of our many failings is a natural tendency to overestimate our achievements. To everyone who says "mental health" doesn't affect them at all, ignorance is no defence (God bless Hans Rosling and his Ignorance Project). We experience the same unit of loss more than the same unit of gain, hence defeat always seems worse and harder to get over, and too much choice can make us feel down. We experience an emotional loss in the same area of the brain that lights up when you are hit with a cricket bat. Emotional and physical pain are the same, loss hurts. If we lose any sense of autonomy, competence or relatedness, we will feel a loss. Unfortunately feeling is only one part of the triptych, thinking and behaviour are the others and we tend to try to override our emotions with those two, and therefore the emotion builds up inside us and ****s us all up (the "stiff upper lip" and "boys don't cry" really is a recipe for totally ****ing everything up).

Social media algorithms tend to pen you in your own bubble, we strive for likes to get a little dopamine tickle, and without the little rush we experience a loss, and drip by drip little by little it affects us all.

Kahnemann and Tversky is a good starting point, or Google loss aversion.

Mental health is not the latest buzz word, it is just unfortunately very late to the party, it is so ****ing important, it should be our number one priority over and above our physical health.

Adam Smith said people just want to love and be loved, always remember that when scanning the Wealth of Nations

Bee nice, Bee kind, we can all choose to do that
 

Vid

Active member
Joined
30 Sep 2013
Messages
4,312
Reaction score
822
Location
In the shed.
The comment "today's buzz word" suggested that the impact on mental health is somehow not authentic, or made up, or the fault of the person experiencing it.

Hopefully that's not what you meant.

I'm glad it doesn't affect you.
Spot on. A big problem of online social media is taking things out of context. This is probably a better format.....
 

Vid

Active member
Joined
30 Sep 2013
Messages
4,312
Reaction score
822
Location
In the shed.
From the above link, Banana wont like this....
"Over a third of men (37 per cent) say social media has a negative impact on how they feel."
I think they mean Twitter etc. definitely not the glorious GPG.
 

Voice from the Braemar

Well-known member
Joined
25 Jan 2001
Messages
19,608
Reaction score
756
Location
finest Surrey
I've no desire to dig out any particular poster, but there was a comment made about mental health that I found objectionable in this thread. So there's my justification.

But hey, thats just my thoughts. Everyone is entitled to theirs and this will just become a cul-de-sac from the main discussion point, upon which I believe the vast majority are aligned.
so cos you found a comment about mental health objectionable you throw accusations around about other things about other posters ? i give up LOL
 

FlyBee

Active member
Joined
29 Apr 2007
Messages
5,877
Reaction score
63
Spot on. A big problem of online social media is taking things out of context. This is probably a better format.....
Thanks for clarifying Vid, and apologies that I took this in a way it wasnt intended.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: Vid

FlyBee

Active member
Joined
29 Apr 2007
Messages
5,877
Reaction score
63
To my fellow Bees, we all have mental health as we all have physical health. Sometimes it is in good shape and sometimes it is not. Aside from the mental illnesses such as Schizophrenia, none of us are "econs", we are all human and thus one of our many failings is a natural tendency to overestimate our achievements. To everyone who says "mental health" doesn't affect them at all, ignorance is no defence (God bless Hans Rosling and his Ignorance Project). We experience the same unit of loss more than the same unit of gain, hence defeat always seems worse and harder to get over, and too much choice can make us feel down. We experience an emotional loss in the same area of the brain that lights up when you are hit with a cricket bat. Emotional and physical pain are the same, loss hurts. If we lose any sense of autonomy, competence or relatedness, we will feel a loss. Unfortunately feeling is only one part of the triptych, thinking and behaviour are the others and we tend to try to override our emotions with those two, and therefore the emotion builds up inside us and ****s us all up (the "stiff upper lip" and "boys don't cry" really is a recipe for totally ****ing everything up).

Social media algorithms tend to pen you in your own bubble, we strive for likes to get a little dopamine tickle, and without the little rush we experience a loss, and drip by drip little by little it affects us all.

Kahnemann and Tversky is a good starting point, or Google loss aversion.

Mental health is not the latest buzz word, it is just unfortunately very late to the party, it is so ****ing important, it should be our number one priority over and above our physical health.

Adam Smith said people just want to love and be loved, always remember that when scanning the Wealth of Nations

Bee nice, Bee kind, we can all choose to do that
Top post Glasgow.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom