Big protest planned for burner vote
Thursday 11th March 2010, 2:30PM GMT.
Anti-incinerator protesters out side the Royal Court building before last month's States' meeting.
UP TO 500 islanders could protest outside this month’s States meeting at which the Suez waste plant will again be debated.
And according to the latest online survey, nearly eight out of 10 islanders are against the Spruce requete seeking to reinstate the incinerator.
Campaigner Rupert Dorey met leading activists yesterday to talk about their plans to demonstrate. ‘A very large public presence outside the States Chamber would be an ideal demonstration of islanders’ wishes. It will be very peaceful, controlled and polite.’
About 90 people protested outside the meeting in February, at which the £93.5m. waste plant was thrown out by one vote after Environment Department members abstained on legal grounds, and Mr Dorey was confident there would be even more when Deputy Tony Spruce’s requete calling for a new vote is discussed.
‘I was in a shop speaking to a fisherman who said his friends and family don’t usually talk about politics, but it’s become a main subject of conversation. It’s a powerful and emotive subject and has become very mainstream.’
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
****COURT STEPS DEMONSTRATION WED 24 MARCH 9am****
A peaceful demonstration is being organised to show the deputies that the vast majority of Guernsey residents do not want a large mass-burn incinerator.
Be there! Bring as many friends and relatives as you can muster. It is your Island, your Government – make your views known.
Report abuse
If the states are in any doubt about the incinerator issue why shouldn’t the public be able to have a special vote at the polls. That way we shall all have our say and maybe someone will listen!
Report abuse
June!
You should know that one can only listen if you are switched on;
The States of Guernsey broke their switch years ago, so they cannot switch on- and LISTEN.
Report abuse
Guernsey Girl
A noble gesture, the problem with it is if 500 members of the public turn up the pro incinerator lobby will rightly say they represent less than 1% of the Island population.
The only way to end this “tit for tat” argument and counter argument is hold an Island wide referendum, get the result, put it to bed and get on with the job of dealing with the waste in whichever way the Island wants it.
Alternatively we might be able to gauge public opinion if the pro burner brigade turns up in force on the 24th also, somehow I doubt it though.
Report abuse
Again its the loud MINORITY that seem to get listened to, what about the silent Majority that actually want the waste to energy system. Dont the ‘greens’ realise how much money we spend per year shipping off the recyclables?
And dont start shipping our waste to Jersey as we will need a huge warehouse to pack our waste, then at least 9 ships to carry this to Jersey.
Come on Guernsey, get real!
Report abuse
I wonder if any of the “Silent Majority” will bother to show up??
Report abuse
Ruth, what are you on “silent majority”, if you’re silent it means you’re a minority, shipping waste to Jersey is cheaper, but add in a Zero Waste strategy to the mix, and you’ll have even less waste to ship.
Get real, you minority, and get recycling!
Report abuse
Ruth:
Since you have obviously taken the trouble to research this issue, could you please tell us:
How much money does it cost Guernsey to ship off island all the recyclates….. could you provide that broken down so that we can see that you have included all the recycling streams.
Could you also include all the money that those recycling streams make.
When you have done that, could you detail the evidence that you have that the ‘silent majority’ is in favour of mass-burn incineration.
Thank you…..
Report abuse
@The Man
we members of the silent majority would love to be there but if all 10,000 of the vocal minority turn up there won’t be room for us. Besides we work for a living and don’t have the time during the working week to stand around in the cold doing nothing …….
( I do hope people can recognise sarcasm when they see it …)
Report abuse
1% of the population is not a very good turnout.
maybe the “silent majority” know that the deputies will do the right thing and give us some form of waste to energy plant….
even young kids who play sim city games know that you cant keep shipping your waste to other places forever. it just wont work.
i would like to see where all of this recycling is going to take place and how many extra bin lorries will be needed to carry the extra loads. i imagine it will be like circuit skips site, but 20 times bigger. smelly, dirty and very loud i guess….but the 500 or so who turn up will no doubt have all the answers…
Report abuse
@toby
Maybe some of those that actually care about their island will happily take time off work, it shows utter commitment that this incinerator is not what the island needs.
@baphomet
1% is better than no percent, this incinerator isn’t what the island needs, anybody with a bit of common sense could work that one out! I’d like to see if 1% of your “silent minority” turn up!
All in all this requete formed by Spruce, will cost the island quite a bit, think of all the minsters sitting around for a few hours, discussing what they discussed last week, those hours could be put to use, such as accepting Rodney Brouard to demonstrate his proposal, there are other alternatives to incineration, most of them up to date and reliable, and perhaps local.
Report abuse
Baphomet:
If Longue Hougue has not got a mass-burn incinerator sprawled all over the site, hogging up all the space, there will be plenty of space for recycling businesses as well as scavenging and reclamation yards, re-use centres etc. and more besides.
Why do you think it would be smelly? No food /putrescible waste would go there.
Report abuse
I too am a member of the silent majority and I do not want the Suez monstrosity. I know very few people who have actually signed the petition but all those I know also don’t want mass burn. Surely it is quite clear to everyone that a large majority of people do not want mass burn. This silent majority is complete nonsense.
Also I dont want to ship to Jersey. I would prefer to look at all the non-mass burn alternatives and choose something that as an island we can afford – Suez should have failed on cost alone, PSD should have come up with alternatives, the criteria prevented alternatives coming forward and even Suez didn’t meet them.
Report abuse
russm
Those who talk about the silent majority,
Thats all they (pro suez) got to hang onto but they know the truth.
ruth smith
9 ships ? where on earth did you get that from.
toby
I`m sure we could keep the bottom step clear, should be enough room there.
Actually i was thinking of starting a pro-suez petition, on the back of my fag packet;).
Report abuse
Ruth Smith.
NINE SHIPS?????
It only takes 3 ships to bring everything in.
Where do you they are going to ship it to, New Jersey?
I think people like you are the best advert for the misinformation that the like of Spruce and Co like to bleat on about.
At least you show which side that misinformation is comming from.
And as for Baphomet, we want incineration cause they av in on the Sims.
Please turn up and demonstrate, I would love to read your banners.
Report abuse
“Why do you think it would be smelly? No food /putrescible waste would go there.”
so where will the waste go then?
Report abuse
Toby
I appreciate your post was meant to be sarcastic (after all sarcasm is a cheap way of trying to get an argument across without actually having to research or continue to coherently argue your case).
But as you say all along, you beleive the majority of the island is in favour of Suez, you also say evidence is needed of the true extent of the Suez opposition.
Yet at least a portion of the opposition to Suez(such as myself)will bother to inconvenience themselves to be there on the 24th.
So answer this, if no-one in favour of Suez turns up, going by your past logic, we can extrapolate that virtually no support exists.
Come on Toby, this is your chance, rally round the alleged 48,000 people (61-13) that desperately want an incinerator and show them to us on the 24th!
Report abuse
Isn’t it a bit of a case of wants vs needs? I’m not sure I agree with the “let’s have a referendum and go with whatever the island wants”.
If I polled my teenage children whether they would like to be able to get drunk every so often and not go to bed till midnight or whenever they wanted, they’d say yes.
If I polled my toddler whether he wants sweets for tea every night, he’d say oh yes.
But that doesn’t mean I should do any of those things.
I stand by what I’ve always said. A lot (not all) of the information supplied by the anti-incinerator lobby has been simply erroneous and wholly misleading.
Report abuse
Rosie
I can partially answer your question to Ruth;
In 2009 the net cost to us of our Bring Banks was £407,278.52. Discount HSBC’s £8,000 sponsorship and Tetrapak’s processing subsidy and the figure would be higher.
The Longue Hougue Waste Recycling Facility is budgeted to cost us £250,000 in 2010.
The above figures have been supplied by PSD.
Report abuse
Thanks Shane. And Suez will cost us a minimum of £8 & 1/2m per year before inflation and decommissioning costs are taken account of.
Billythefish.
I would agree that there has been some erroneous info on the anti-incinerator side…… but you have to agree that there has been a huge amount on the pro incinerator side. Apart from the Deputies posting on here, anyone else posting pro-incinerator just seems to shoot from the hip without bothering to look into the subject.
Report abuse
Billy
again devils advocate….. but your erroneous and misleading comment could also be said of the information provided pro-suez.
Report abuse
Shane Langlois
Were those figures supposed to be frightening ?
I’LL SHOW YOU FRIGHTENING !
The 2010 £250,000 budget for the Longue Hougue facility would last just under 12 days if the £21,260 per day cost of Suez is to be believed
Report abuse
Rosie and The Man
Thing is, you can forgive people here making mistakes, but the misleading info anti-Suez comes from the “well informed” organised campaigners.
For example – reference to “the £93.5m incinerator”. For crying out loud – it wasn’t JUST for an incinerator!!!!
Report abuse
billythefish
Of course you dont think it would be a good idea to let the public decide, why is that?. Is it because you know the result wont be the one you want?.
The rest of your post just goes to show you have nothing of real substance to support your stance on suez.
You dont give the public much credit in makeing an informed decision?.
Why dont you consider that you might be wrong given that many waste experts agree with 21 deputies and probably 45,000 members of the public.
Report abuse
I would like to invite all those who believe we should proceed with the Suez waste treatment plant to boycott the demonstration being organised by the anti Suez lobby.
If you agree that the correct decision in favour of the waste from energy plant was made, after years of investigation and discussion, please stay away from any anti Suez demonstrations.
Report abuse
bcb
When people keep referring to a £93.5m incinerator, then, no I don’t give those people much credit as they are clearly not well informed!
Also, please see my earlier example, which you claim shows nothing of substance to support Suez. Thing is, I wasn’t saying Suez was right. I was just saying that the public aren’t always the best people to make a decision. I quite frankly don’t care what decision is made, I’m a bit apathetic over it. I am though, happy to trust the experts.
Which brings me neatly on to your last point. Each camp can wheel out many waste experts. PSD employed the guy who at one of the public meetings advised us that he literally DID write the book on EU emmissions regulations (he was employed by the EU and led the team doing so). But that still didn’t stop some wiki-informed audience members deciding they knew more about the subject of emmissions.
Back to my first point – No, I do not trust the public!
Report abuse
I don’t quite get your post Ted – why on earth would pro-Suez people even be thinking of attending an anti-Suez demonstration?
Unless there’s a cunning political message hidden in your post it’s rather unnecessary.
Report abuse
@ The Man
congratulations for once again totally failing to get the point ….
I have, to the best of my knowledge, never said that I am pro Suez. I’m pro actually having an agreed waste solution for the island. After the last debate whilst we actually had no strategy at least we seemed to have some agreement at last. Which seems to have evaporated again ….
I have never claimed that the silent majority are in favour of Suez …… The whole point is thy are silent so we have no idea what they think. By the same token you can’t claim they are against it. Up to 13,000 people
have expressed a preference in a petition for the Vantage solution. At best that means that aproximately 1/5th of the island don’t want Suez. That is the nearest to a measure of public opinion we have. I’m not saying that means that the other 4/5ths are in favour. I’m saying that the confirmed anti lobby only constitute a very vocal 20% of the population, wheras the unknowns are a significant and silent majority of 80%. Again let me make it clear, I’m not saying that the pro Suez are 80% of the population ….. But I am saying the anti Suez are only 20% .
I won’t be on the steps campaining- because I don’t feel that strongly in favour of Suez.What I am in favour of is consesus decision making by the States …. And sticking to those decisions. I, like many others , see no point in endlessly debating the same issue again and again. Which will mean sometimes having to accept what is for me an uncomfortable outcome, which at least means something is being done. It appears many are opposed to returning to a decision they agree with, and yet will fight tooth and
claw to bring back one they don’t…..you can’t have your gache and eat it …
Anyone who does turn up and make their opinion heard and felt is to be applauded and supported for their efforts …. Whatever side they are ony
Report abuse
Come on Paul, thats how the silent majority thing works.
In Teds mind he has instructed the silent majority to stay silent. When they remain silent, this is 100% proof of their existance and their views.
Report abuse
billythefish
While i do understand with some of what you say there are a lot of members of the public that do try to understand as much as they can. My point was really that given there was 21 deputies with all the info they had, they voted out suez in effect, and given the massive public response i think that should at least count towards sticking with the decision?.
I do how ever not have to much faith in the experts, it often comes with a lot of spin and outright lies to fit agenda`s, even corrupt dealings within the well conected.
Look at some of the top brass in the banks for example, the multi nats, and many big financial institutions. And do we have man made global warming? i`m lost on that one but thats “experts” for you
I wish i could say i am happy to trust the experts but because it often includes much of the above i`m affraid i don`t share the same faith as you do.
It is rather sad .
Report abuse
Billythefish:
We refer to just the incinerator because it is the ONLY part of the plant that is relevant. Why is this? Because PSD were mandated to get a solution for our ‘residual’ waste….. that is the waste that cannot be dealt with by other means. The part of the Suez plant that deals with the ‘residual’ waste is the mass-burn incinerator, ( although a good portion of the waste being chucked into the furnace will not be ‘residual’ waste at all but that is another argument!)
The MRF bolted onto the front end is not much more than just a conveyer belt…. it adds VERY little to the cost and not only that, it doesn’t take ‘residual’ waste so theoretically should not be part of a residual plant that you and I will be paying for. It should be in the private sector.
The cost for the Suez plant is expensive primarily because of 3 elements. 1.the mass-burn incinerator, 2. the very expensive flue scrubbers needed on the incinerator and 3. the ‘landmark’ designed building needed to try to make an unpopular waste disposal method more appealing. The MRF is incidental.
Hope this clears this up for you.
Report abuse
Clearly you greens would argue black was blue and only read what you want to read when it comes to enviromental issues.
Report abuse
I gathered that Total Waste. The “silent majority thing” is a fallacy for reasons I shouldn’t have to explain here – but I think you know that and are being a little tongue in cheek :-)
Report abuse
Toby
On the subject of surveys, petitions and ‘lobbying’. Of the former I’ll be the first to admit that most polls should be prefaced by the words “those likely to respond to a survey think X about X subject”. However unlike the Daily Mail surveys where you ‘Phone this number to have all paedophiles hung” our survey system works slightly differently to that. I’ll explain.
The database has some 2500 email addresses on it that regularly receive some 20% response rate. That equates to around 500 people and is 0.5% of the population.
The make up of that database are people that we have been in contact over the last ten years of trading and include Chamber of Commerce Members, Deputies from the previous House, the current House and all manner of office/business related people.
You may or may not know that we regularly poll this database on all manner of subjects and that same survey group was used as the basis for Scrutiny’s Vandalism questionnaire. Most notably the Island Wide Voting Survey received some 600 responses and before the election showed that Brian de Jersey would lose his seat – which he did. After the election, in 3 wards it was accurate.
We are currently asking the same database a number of questions on behalf of the Guernsey Dairy, regarding product consumption habits; this will be fed back into their Board, I assume, to assist them in their future strategy. How much weight they give those responses I don’t really know; if it helps a Guernsey business then we’ve done our job.
As a general comment what I do know is that there are rarely changes in percentages from 100 responses to 600 responses. As we watch the responses come in there has never been a survey, apart from possibly the IWV, where the patterns change from the more responses that we get. For acceptance purposes, we know that we need around 500 – 600 for any of the media to publish or give any credence to the responses. I accept that.
What we try to do is keep the surveys non-personalised and try to poll on subjects of major interest. There have been a number of ‘opportunities’ where we could have polled the database on subjects of political personalities and have been careful to avoid. Having said that, we did conduct one on the subject of ‘wreath laying’ at the end of last year. Looking back at it that was a mistake, it made us look far too politicised and I never released the results. That won’t happen again.
We have had varied responses from people on all of our polls. It’s part of the human condition is to like what we want and deny don’t. On a number of occasions we have had people thanking us for the work that we have conducted (public and political) but one survey later the same people are questioning the make up of the survey when they don’t like the results. You can’t have it both ways eh?
Those of us old enough to remember the broadsheet GEP will have know that it was nothing more than a Guernsey ‘Pravda’; no real comment, no popular opinion; just a government vehicle for pushing out one sided news. In the last 20 years technological advancements have been scarily fast.
The GP’s editorial content has changed we are now in a world of 24/7 news, the Internet has turned up; not to mention that the public aren’t as cap-doffing and deferential as they used to be and a lot more educated and world wise.
This House for the first time in history is exposed to the immediacy of the Internet. There’s no doubt it has got more difficult for politicians as the bubble in which they used to live has, to a degree been burst or at least contracted. That’s no criticism of our politicians, all it is an observation, which is challengeable, from someone who has been in the media industry for the past 20 years.
If politicians want to ‘engage with the public’ then this is the future. It might be coming from all quarters and looking hideously organised, but engagement is what it is.
On the subject of the Suez contract there have been 3 surveys and 3 rejections of the proposal. It’s now up to the States to decide what weight they give those responses, if any at all.
Report abuse
To those pro burning as they feel recycling is too expensive and that we should do energy from waste.
The point is being missed.
It is not waste that would be burnt, but commodities needed to replenish the substances needed in order to sustain the lifestyle that the western world has generated.
If a burn it approach is taken then at some point in the not too distant future your offspring wont be able to have what you had as there would not be the materials left to rape the planet for to make them.
We have to get smart at recycling/reusing, the western economies have to lead the way as they have the money (and the greed that got us to this point) so have a duty to lead in sorting ethical and sustainable waste managment.
Report abuse
Had a call this morning about a protest today on the royal court steps, but I thought it was happening on the 24th. Is there an anti incinerator protest today?
Report abuse
No Dominic
Today’s protest was FOR the incinerator
I drove passed at 9.15am and there was nobody there
I therefore presume that the whole 60,000 population are AGAINST the burner
Mr Spruce ,please take note.
Report abuse
Dominic.
You are right. The peaceful protest is:
next WEDNESDAY the 24TH MARCH. 8:45am – 9:30am.
Get there early incase the traffic is bad and bring all your friends and family who do not want to see Guernsey tied into an expensive, inflexible waste contract for the next 30 years. I know that for many, it is not possible to get out of work commitments, but for those that possibly can, this will be an event to remember. See you there!
p.s. if any are able to stay to watch the debate in the chamber, then that would also be good. If you have never done that before….. it is very interesting to watch our ‘parliament’ in action.
Report abuse
Please would someone treat me like a complete imbecile and give me a simple breakdown of a realistic alternative to Suez, I haven’t heard one that I actually believe will work yet.
I would prefer not to have an incinerator, but can’t see a viable alternative, and am therefore on the fence at the moment, which is probably where the “silent majority” are.
Report abuse
I would like to know, why Tony Spruce has the use of the PSD propaganda machine?
When we the 80% are paying 80% of the cost of this said propaganda.
Would it not be more democratic to let our side have this facility as well, as to be to put it quite crudely. We won.
Their is certainly a lot of motivation for Tony Spruce’s side as their is a lot of money at stake.
Hell a Back.You do not want to understand, but i will try.
Recycling as it should be done, with the back up of Landfill at Les Vardes, which is certainly less damaging then incineration.
Sending to Jersey, Green Homes, Vantage and other ones not looked at.
Why were these not looked at, maybe Suez is big money and the others would be cheaper.
What also worries me is a large number these Deputies will either stand down or not get reelected next time and have nothing to lose.
Report abuse
Hell n Back
Which alternatives have you already dismissed as un-realistic ?
At the current rate of fill (37k tons per annum), Chouet will be full by December 2019.
http://www.gov.gg/ccm/navigation/public-services/waste-disposal—recycling/mont-cuet-landfill-site/
We currently achieve a recycling rate of ~36% to then be left with 37k to landfill.
If the recycling rate was to hit 75% then we would be dumping 14500tpa the remaining landfill would be extended by 2.55x the current life span or to ~25years.
Bear in mind that an incinerator produces bottom ash at a ratio of about 20% (on a good day) of the feedstock. Assuming we cant use it on the roads because of water catchment area issues then it would utilise the remaining landfill at a similar rate to achieving 80% recycling.
To me everything stacks up to pursuing a zero waste policy as quickly as possible that is ‘sold’ to the public and businesses by incentives and not enforcement. Only when you have exhausted every scheme to reduce residual waste should we then consider an end of line destruction method for that which has truely reached the end of its life.
Zero Waste is quite a hard sell when people keep thinking about ‘solutions’ / one stop shops / turn key solutions. Zero Waste is mostly about a strategy / policy change, the shiny new facilities that may / may not be needed in a zero waste solution are much further down the chain / list of priorities.
Report abuse
Hell n Back.
PSD were mandated to get a residual waste plant. ‘Residual’ means the waste that is left after EVERYTHING that can possibly be re-used, recycled etc etc has been taken out. The Suez proposal is for a plant of 45,000 tonnes to 56,000 tonnes and has the capacity to be taken up to 70,000 tonnes. However, our ‘residual’ waste has been consistently dropping for the last 6 to 7 years and we still have much in our waste stream that can be taken out. Witness the story in todays Press of a 7 year old that is responsible for a business reducing its waste by 50%…. and he did that by nagging his mum who worked there and she installed recycling boxes! Simple and a much cheaper way of dealing with waste than a high tech over specified and overpriced machine!
We could very rapidly reduce our ‘residual’ waste to approx 20,000 tonnes… less than half of what is needed for the Suez plant. We could do this by extracting all the food and biological waste and sticking that through an anaerobic digestor to make compost and generate energy in the process. WIthout the food waste in the waste stream, there would be less contamination of the rest of the materials and so extracting many more recyclates would be possible.
As well as this, Longue Hougue could be turned into a re-use / recycling / repair / reclamation park…. generating income into the States coffers and enabling us all to extend the life of goods so further reducing the amount of waste generated.
The mistake when thinking about what ‘alternatives’ there are to Suez, is to think that we need to replace one form of techno fix with another. We don’t need to. What we need to do is to look at waste differently…….. treated properly, it does not need to be waste at all.
Report abuse
Hell n Back – I take it you didn’t get to Paul Connett’s Zero Waste presentation… Someone’s posted it on You Tube, so that might be the best place to start. It’s in quite a few parts, but here is the link to the first one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-dhQnRs7Lg
It basically outlines waste minimisation, and explains at the same time how we ended up with such an inappropriate solution in the form of the Suez proposal. Essentially, all the consultants that PSD have used have been experts in ‘waste management’ – i.e. how to deal with the end result with one big, shiny, expensive technological solution – rather than consultants who would have addressed the cause before the symptoms, and would have aimed to significantly reduce the volume of waste we generate in the first place and then deal with it in a lot of different ways, many of them at community level.
To answer your question more succinctly, the viable alternative is not, as many people assume, another big, shiny, expensive technological solution. The waste minimisation strategy that Scott Ogier is working on at the moment will probably incorporate a whole range of measures aimed at drastically reducing the size of the problem in the first place and then being more creative with what’s left. “Waste” is a misnomer, in a way – most of what we chuck out is really valuable in one way or another and we should be treating it like a resource. Food waste, for example, currently makes up 36% of our local waste stream, and this could be drastically reduced just by educating consumers about it. (Google Love Food Hate Waste for more details.) At the same time, food waste can pretty easily be turned into compost which could be used in place of the fertilisers that at the moment we have to import, and we could export the excess compost for profit. If we use anaerobic digestors to make the compost we can also get energy and potable water out of the process. (Burning it, on the other hand, is completely bonkers – it’s got a high water content which makes the incineration process even less efficient than it already is!)
This is just one little piece of the much bigger jigsaw that is waste minimisation – there are hundreds and hundreds of viable alternatives! It’s just common sense and creativity, really, but it makes so much more sense than destroying valuable resources for a really feeble energy output. I’ve looked into the Suez proposal in a fair bit of detail and in my opinion it’s madness: it’s just way, way too risky on a wide range of financial fronts as well as deeply irresponsible environmentally speaking.
You obviously have to make the decision for yourself, but I hope you have time to watch the presentation on You Tube and I hope to see you next Wednesday on the Court steps!
Report abuse
Dave Jones,Matt Fallaize,Jan K and others.
I know you read these blogs
PLEASE make your States colleagues read them too
There is so much good sense written here
Report abuse
Hell and Back.
Check out whynotguernsey.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1102
There is a basic outline of our proposal
Report abuse
Dont’ forget to pass the message on to all those you know who can take a bit of time off work to come and join us on:
WED.24th 8:45am – 9:30am on the Old Court steps for a peaceful demonstration to welcome the Deputies into the States of Deliberation and to ask them once again to reject the Suez proposal.
See you there!!
Report abuse
this could be a significant demo if one believes what one hears – i am not sure i do. but has anyone heard the rumour that a mini trojan horse of anarchy / anti-capitalism types are looking to infiltrate? mind you, the mohicans should stand out among the burberrys. still worth a butchers i reckon.
Report abuse