Breaking: Environmental activist to challenge INEOS over anti-fracking protest injunction

Joe Corre

The anti-fracking campaigner, Joe Corre, is to go to court next week to oppose an injunction brought by INEOS Upstream against shale gas protesters.

Corre, son of fashion designer, Dame Vivienne Westwood, said this evening:

“Someone has to stand up against these disgusting bully boy tactics”.

INEOS was granted an interim injunction by Mr Justice Morgan at a private, unannounced hearing on 31 July 2017 (DrillOrDrop report). It is seeking to make the order permanent at a hearing on Tuesday 12 September 2017 at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

The injunction is the most wide-ranging of its kind secured by the shale industry. It is also the first issued pre-emptively before a company had planning permission to start drilling and where there is no campaign activity at any of its sites.

Joe Corre, who has opposed shale gas operations through the group Talk Fracking, said he had made submissions to INEOS lawyers, Fieldfisher, to object to the continuation of the order.

The interim injunction covered eight named locations, as well as company offices and property belonging to site landowners. It also applied to routes to proposed exploration sites and to activities by INEOS employees and firms in its supply chain, including any depots, equipment, people and operations.

A notice on the INEOS website said anyone who breached the order by “interfering with lawful activities” would be “held in contempt of court and may be imprisoned, fined or have your assets seized.”

Slow walking outlawed

The injunction specifically referred to so-called slow walking, where protesters attempt to delay deliveries by walking slowing in front of vehicles. Some courts have acquitted anti-fracking campaigners who have carried out this form of protest.

The order appeared to prevent the protest tactic of lorry-surfing, where campaigners climb on top of vehicles to slow down operations. It also included harassment of INEOS and third parties, offences under Section 241 of the Trades Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act and criminal damage or theft. And it applied to anyone who knew about the order and did anything which helped another person to breach it.

As it stands, the injunction has significantly increased the risk of protesting. For example, the maximum penalty on conviction for obstructing the highway – the usual charge against people who take part in slow-walking protests – is a £1,000 fine, although most courts impose a conditional discharge for first offences. The maximum penalty for contempt of court is two years in prison.

Mr Corre said:

 “This Ineos legal shock and awe exercise is typical of the arrogance of Jim Ratcliffe [the INEOS owner] who thinks he can buy the British law and play God on moral issues.

“Rather than rely on existing laws for prosecuting protesters when breached, INEOS’s injunction has added extra legal snares to prevent legitimate protest activities and paralyse protesters by threats of imprisonment and economically through prohibitive costs orders.”

He criticised INEOS for seeking to explore for shale gas at Marsh Lane, in Derbyshire, near a school and less than 400m from homes. He also accused the company of “bullying a national treasure” by threatening court against the National Trust, which has refused access to Clumber Park for seismic surveying.

“Someone has to stand up to these gigantic bullies who are running roughshod over our homes, national parks, communities and schools and now over the laws that protect our fundamental rights and freedoms.”



38 replies »

  1. “INEOS was granted an interim injunction by Mr Justice Morgan at a private, unannounced hearing on 31 July 2017 (DrillOrDrop report). It is seeking to make the order permanent at a hearing on Tuesday 12 September 2017 at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

    The injunction is the most wide-ranging of its kind secured by the shale industry. It is also the first issued pre-emptively before a company had planning permission to start drilling and where there is no campaign activity at any of its sites.”

    This court action just serves to illustrate just how far INEOS are prepared to go to railroad over any opposition to it’s, as yet, unapproved operations.
    It would be interesting to establish wether such actions contravene UK law in that, in theory, nothing can change, modify, or supercede common law? Protest is an inalienable human right under common law. That in theory cannot be withdrawn, this injunction seeks to destroy that right.
    This challenge to the draconian INEOS injunction must be supported for all our sakes, or we will quickly find ourselves in a police state where anything not kow towing to draconian private corporations will be essentially illegal?

    That must never occur, like I said before, the barbarians are all ready inside the walls, now they are working to leave the gates wide open for as many Trojan horses as they wish to construct.
    That is little more than an attempt to create a legalised totalitarian slave state, it really is that important.
    Those of us who prefer freedom to slavery, legalised or otherwise, would be well advised to support this challenge to the INEOS generated attempt to make the slaves injunction permanent.

  2. “Increased the risk for/to protesting” rather than “of protesting”. I think that is a little more accurate ie. it means that those who wish to cost Ineos and the communities and the tax payers money by antisocial behaviour (putting it very mildly) so that the cost will drive them away will find the cost to themselves will become more proportionate. God bless the British legal system.

    NT a national treasure? Does he not read the papers? He has a week to do a bit of research on that one!

    • Re – NT a national treasure

      Martin , your are not in a slight and around about fashion trying to raise the point of the


    • Jack
      It must be true. Onshore drilling equipment has to be stored somewhere when not in use. No sign of pumps and frack water trucks in the picture, so maybe the actual fracking equipment is hidden somewhere else.

    • Hi JTH

      That’s a picture of a Drilling Rig, not Frac equipment.

      To the left are the drilling fluid tanks and solids control equipment. In the center is the Rig itself and what looks like the choke manifold. To the right are the Mud Pumps.

      Incidentally, note the neat little steps with handrails to get over the two hoses on the ground – that’s the sort of level we get down to, to try and minimise the risk of accidents. It comes under ‘slips, trips and falls’.

      • Injuneer,

        Safety is re assuring and always warmly welcomed, no matter how small the highlighted point may be . I for one, want to hear a lot more of the focus to be directed on safety .

        Thanks for explaining more about the equipment .

  3. Err, no Jack. I would suggest you should not take one incident in isolation but research the wider picture. There has been plenty of publication of that since the “Pin Saga” [Edited by moderator]


      ” Pin Saga ”

      For anyone wanting learn about and indulge themselves in this mind gripping, white knuckle ride debate between myself and Martin.

      Please see Drill or Drop post headed , Nesting Birds Prompt Fifth Delay for restoration at Becconsall shale site, Lancs
      AUGUST 11, 2017.

      [Edited by moderator]

      • Martin, I can understand why you have bitterness towards the National Trust ( NT ) considering their current stance against the Fracking Industry .

        SPEAKING FOR MYSELF MARTIN and this is my opinion only, I can not work out yet whether you are someone who works for a PR company, employed to promote the Fracking industry, or are someone who is maybe, down on their Fracking luck ( investment ) and desperate to talk it up …

        Either way your blind allegiance towards the industry is worthy of a Fracking commendation. You have continually ignored and never directly challenged any of the professional scientific, medical or engineering posts I have put forward on this forum warning of the dangers of Fracking, why is that ?? … This policy of ” see no evil, hear no evil , speak no evil towards the industry is truly Oscar winning.

        YOUR ABOVE POST ……. directs us to do our own research on the National Trust , but yet again as in our “Pin Badge “debate offers NO insight as to what exactly we are looking for …….COULD you be guiding us to look at the proposed increase in NT membership rates, I wonder.

        NOW I’M JUST THINKING OF THE TOP OF MY HEAD HERE , if you did work for a Fracking PR company , it would explain why , for legal reasons you are always very reluctant to provide any direct links following the generalised statements you make …

        After all , to protect a PR company’s reputation, standing and the possibility of legal challenges, this lack of clarity when making such statements would greatly protect them. I would guess, maybe, this type of policy would be Standard Practice.

        • Martin, for fear of not wanting to sound to critical towards you …..

          I do find a number of your other posts very interesting and thought provoking … I accept you do have a wide knowledge of the conventional Oil and Gas industry and greatly appreciate your contributions on this site ..

          No hard feelings .

          Regards , Jackthelad

  4. Oh dear Jack!

    I am responsible for a lot of things, but not for your lack of knowledge. All you are doing is confirming that you look at issues through very restrictive blinkers.

    Politely, it is none of your business who I work for-but I will give you a clue, because you have obviously ignored previous discussions. I am retired, I did not work in the oil/gas industry and have no financial interests in companies within the UK who are about to frack. I might have a small investment in Centrica through pension funds, but I can not be bothered to check that. I do have investments in companies developing lithium resources and took delivery of my new PHEV today, kindly funded from the Weald “Ponzi” schemes as has been so wrongly, and now evidently, claimed.

    Perhaps less thinking off the top of your head and a bit more research? Otherwise, you prove how easy speculation becomes fabrication.

    • Martin, yes you could be retired and yes I could be SUPERMAN .

      On here we can be anything we like.

      Evidence and proof ……. that’s all that matters, which is why I am always keen to back up the posts I put forward .

      • OK MARTIN ,

        I say this,

        We are all on here for a reason.

        Speaking for myself, my current opposition towards this industry is because I have done my own research and believe, long term, Fracking is not safe . YES , my motivation is for the safety of my children and grandchildrens future on this planet …

        FOR OTHERS both pro and anti Fracking, it may well be financial…..

        EITHER WAY , as history has shown, MONEY has always been one of the main driving factors for human beings.

        Referring to your above post , quote, ” have no financial interests in companies within the UK who are about to frack. ”

        WHY THEN spend all your TIME defending such an industry that has an ever-growing, almost endless list of professional people/bodies warning us of the dangers…

        WHY NOT adopt the precautionary approach ??? Has mankind learnt nothing from ignoring warnings ( asbestos, smoking and tower block cladding ) to name but a few .

        • Martin, just to add to the above. I am aware that asbestos is now banned and smoking almost banned in the UK.

          BUT, althogh industries knew these were not safe , we were told they were. This has cost thousands of lives over the years, including the still unknown number of lives at the more recent Tower Block Cladding disaster ..

          Why do you ignore the Fracking warnings , what’s really in it for you ??

          • JTL,

            Forgot to mention, one of the reasons I was puzzled by the objections to frac’ing was that there have been around 200 frac jobs Onshore the UK already.

            I know for sure of one in Sussex, because it was done by a Company I was working for at the time.

        • Hi JTL,

          I am in the Oil Industry, having worked for many years as a Drilling Manager / Superintendent / Engineer. I’ve recently returned to the UK, having spent most of my time living and working Overseas. I’m currently ‘in between contracts’ as one of the oil industry people who took a 100% pay cut when the oil price crashed!

          In the interests of full disclosure, I was involved in drilling some Wells Onshore the UK in the 80’s and early 90’s, but have worked Overseas since then. I have never worked for any of the Operators planning or currently drilling shale Wells in the UK.

          Yes, I hold shares in several oil Companies (and if you have a Company pension, you probably do too), although I also hold shares in Companies involved in Lithium, Uranium, Potash, Tungsten and Gold.

          I was genuinely confused by the apparent level of hostility against frac’ing in the UK, until I did a little research into the background and realised that many have taken at face value some of the anti-frac’ing stories and, to be frank, propaganda, that has come out of the USA.

          Yes, there have been some instances of pollution caused by frac’ing in the US, but nowhere near as much as you have been lead to believe. For example, if you have seen the anti-frac film ‘Gasland’, there is a famous clip where a home owner sets fire to the water coming from his tap. What the film doesn’t say is that he could do that long before the Rigs ever turned up, because his water well penetrates a coal bed containing methane. Do a websearch for ‘Gasland debunked’ to see for yourself.

          In quite a few cases, they are mixing coal-bed methane production (which has an abysmal track record) with frac’ing. For example, in some areas of the US, they allow drilling for coal-bed methane production into coal seams where locals are getting their water from – something that would never be allowed here.

          There have been several peer-reviewed studies in the US and they all (with the notable exception of a Harvard Study which has been widely criticised for it’s poor methodology, cherry picking data and skewing of it’s conclusions) essentially say the same thing – Frac’ing can be done in a safe, environmentally responsible manner, if it’s done properly – and that’s the crux of the matter – it has to be done properly.

          In addition, much of the controversy is stoked by simple envy. In the US, the landowner owns the mineral rights and since the shale boom, there are many situations where the land-owning farmer has become a multi-millionaire in the space of a couple of years, but the folks in the nearest village are still dirt-poor.

          Many of the problems in the US with the drilling industry as a whole (not just the shale gas & oil) is that they operate under a much looser regulatory environment than in the UK. They are still allowed to use operating practices and procedures that were banned in the UK before I started in the oil industry in the early 80’s.

          I can say that the UK Regulations are widely regarded as being ‘best in class’ and I use them in most Countries I have worked in, as the local regulations were inadequate or non-existent. Several Countries have adopted, or are in the process of adopting the UK regulations. As an example of how far behind the US is, they only adopted the UK Offshore Safety Case Regulatory frame work a couple of years ago (after the Macondo disaster), whereas this was brought in by the UK in the early 1990’s.

          I have only been on this site for a couple of days and it is pretty clear that there are a few ‘pro’, several ‘anti’ and some in the middle. I am quite happy to answer any questions to the best of my knowledge, even though it is clear that nothing I could say would ever convince some of those against frac’ing that it is safe.

          To answer the obvious question, would I let them drill and frac a Well near my house? In the UK, yes, I would.

          • Thanks injuneer, probably the best detailed description yet on this site, long may such level headed replies continue.

            This term “Gold Standard Regulations” is essentially a myth that was stated in order to underpin the government’s argument for their ‘dash for gas’, and their belief that whatever problems there have been in every other country that has allowed fracking, and whatever the risks to public health, air and water quality, the environment and pretty much anything else, it can all be avoided because in the UK we have ‘”gold standard fracking regulations.”

            In fact its not true, there is a link to carol Hawkins paper “Fracking Minding The Gaps”here:


            There are regulations but easily avoided by the operators as they don’t directly refer to HPUHF as is now being used in UK.
            The concept of a totally sealed site is a relatively new one, since like you i mostly worked abroad, on civil engineering contracts and only came into contact with the oil industry in dealing with failed bunds, out of date distribution and pipelines, not in the industry so to speak, but working alongside on several projects, albeit dealing with the down side post production so to speak.

            There was little concept of sealed sites and indeed little regard for any kind of consequences, until it became a problem of course, then my company was one of the ones to be called in to find a solution and clean up the mess.

            I have little faith in such a concept, we have seen what happens to a site in a flood plain, like Cuadrillas site at Preston New Road, to which they commented:
            “I can confirm there has been no flooding on the site. There was heavy rain for a several days recently which did collect in the well cellar and surrounding low area of site, however the site has been designed to drain water in the event of such an occurrence and it is working as per design.”

            Clearly that indicates some form of drainage, not a closed system, either off or below the site?
            Then we see Texas after Hurricane Harvey and Florida, soon to witness Hurricane Irma and another building in the gulf afterwards, and wonder what the impact of that may be. USA weather usually gets here to UK a week to two weeks later, so maybe we will see what measures as a sealed site will produce then?

            I know quite a lot about interception, attenuation, separation and subsequent overflow drainage requirements, to have a totally closed system, a site would need to have a continuous pumped system to deal with 1:200 or is it 1:500 year storms these days?

            And pumped where? In theory surface run off after a point overflows contaminated materials and is relatively clean and therefore can be drained to a set of herringbone soaks, but a sealed site and a drowned interceptor and separator precludes that. I suspect the condition to be untenable or unattenuationable to coin a word?
            I really cannot believe that a continuous convoy of tanker trucks operating for days on end, would even be possible, considering the rest of the countryside would be equally stricken by high water and overflowing treatment plants, as you say that would be a fineable event to end all fineable events.

            The other aspect of this, is the amount of fresh water required for the various processes, some 20 million gallons per frack isn’t it? And a well may be fracked several times and multiple wels on the same pad. then of course, its the removal of that same, now contaminated fluid, millions of gallons, unless it is “reinjected” of course and that just adds to the pollution problem doesn’t it?
            So the site is hardly sealed in either fashion one could say, and if it all relies on expensive fossil fuels to cart fluids to and from the site, it just adds to the precious carbon footprint we are told so much about?

          • Injuneer
            Thank you for your detailed response, I to agree with Phill C first paragraph regarding ” level headed replies. ”

            I can accept and concede several of the above points you have raised. In particular, possible, questionable parts in the gasland documentary.

            I draw the conclusion from your above statement that you have spent your life working in the Conventional Oil and Gas industry and not the Fracking Industry.
            As a person who has questioned a lot, the safety of fracking , I can though confirm that I am more comfortable with public health and safety regarding the more Conventional parts of Oil extraction .
            Apart from looking at some of the facts, I also base my opinion on the fact that I have known a number of Oil workers who have retained their almost perfect health record throughout their working lives and still do as they race towards a 100.

            That being said , their time was mostly spent 6 weeks on a platform and 4 or 6 weeks off, they were never living next to a platform on a permanent basis, like the people living in some of the more densely populatated parts of the UK are being asked to ….. So although sympathetic to the conventional Oil and Gas industry , I would still like to read the fine print on public safety regarding continual exposure ..

            I am though for the record against the destruction of areas of outstanding beauty to facilitate this industry in any form .

            Regarding your comments on the quality of the regulatory framework . That I am NOT convinced about … I have first hand witnessed the totally laughable, unprofessional mindset of the EA as they tried to sell to the public the safety of a large incinerator in a densely populated area of Manchester. This area already, before the Incinetator was rubber stamped for aporoval had been shown to break EU guidelines on air quality on a regular basis ..


            As far as the safety of Fracking goes , That is something I am really concerned about … Here is the result of 400 PEER REVIEWED studies


            Fracking….. 96% of all papers published on health impacts, indicate potential risks or adverse health outcomes.

            Would I live next to a wind farm ….. Yes

            Would I live next to a Nuclear Power Station….. Maybe

            Would I live next to a Conventional Oil/Gas extraction well…… Maybe

            Would I live next to a Frack pad……
            No ( not at this time )

  5. There are no fracking warnings, as you put it Jack, that convince me. Certainly no warnings from UK because we have yet to start! Certainly none from other countries that I have researched. Yes, a lot of dubious stuff from USA, and we have discussed that all before, but at the end of the day just remember the USA is the most litigious country in the world (remember BP/Gulf of Mexico), so why haven’t the fracking companies there been sued out of business? Maybe, it’s because there is a conspiracy but maybe it is because there are no cases that would stand up to legal scrutiny?

    What is in it for me? I suspect financial benefit. Not directly, but through being able to control energy costs. Don’t minimise that Jack, I worked through the time when OPEC increased oil prices by 400%. My (1st) mortgage rate went ballistic, my first child was on the way, other costs spiralled and I had the responsibility of applying monthly to the Price Commission to enable price increases to be awarded to a UK nationwide company. If that application was unsuccessful then the costs still applied but could not be recovered, other than to reduce levels of staffing. Not a stress free occupation!

    Many other reasons-but I will stick with that one.

    I have worked on projects within the EU where they are very keen to apply the Precautionary Principle. It is generally a kop out to stop things they want to and the reasons are normally scientifically flawed. (Familiar?) Besides, fracking in the UK already applies the Precautionary Principle. There are a small number of sites (in England) where fracking could happen shortly, to test not produce. Others may follow if they get through the same procedures. Production would then need to be separately authorised. If that is not Precautionary, I don’t know what is.

  6. Sorry Jack, the other important point I did not re-state, is I do not spend all my time defending the fracking companies, I defend their right to be allowed to test a concept in this country as long as they do so within the many constraints laid down. They have “purchased” this right, it is a perfectly legal operation and until it is shown that the tests are unsuccessful then I prefer to support their legal rights rather than mob rule, excited by false information (see Dave today.) You will say they are breaching all the constraints, well, in practice, all such tests will identify a few areas to tighten up, and as long as that is monitored, they are minor and tightened up, then that is quite standard. The excitement around wheel washing etc. on DOD is understandable but to the outside world it is a joke.

    • Martin. The drilling companies have ‘purchased’ a licence to explore and extract shale gas all over the UK. This was ‘purchased’ from the presently conservative government who have supported this industry based on data put forward in 2010.

      Since then there has been much controversy about the need and the environmental affects of the extraction of shale gas, another fossil fuel. We have also had the Paris Climate Change Agreement.

      The ‘right’ is debated here daily by those who see the potential harm that the fossil fuel and shale gas industry could cause to the densely populated island we call home.

      Where it is lawful for the companies to operate, it is not a ‘right’ if the process itself contravenes human rights which supersede all other law.

      Despite your of tried ‘Alice in Wonderland’ interpretations of statistics it is important to recognise there is an ever increasing turning against fossil fuel extraction and its polluting nature. Despite big money PR and nudge psychology the world is moving towards cleaner energy production faster than the oil companies were expecting and their investors and extractors are jittery; hence the ‘sky is pink’ rhetoric on this blog and many company websites.

      If people had been better educated in the past, I’m sure protest against other practices which have ensured the suffering of many people in order to make money and give power for the few, would have been more common. Despite what anyone writes on here, people of the 21st century have moral conviction and are prepared to put themselves in the firing line to stop what could be a catastrophic industry in the UK.

      I am proud that people are standing up for their rights to a safe place to live without intimidation from authorities who pertain to be guardians but are in fact just exploiters; from individuals who put themselves before the needs of others.

      This protest movement will not go away, despite all the snide remarks, name calling and derogatory categorization of individuals who do not fit in with the manufactured stereotype of that ‘ordinary’ person; thankfully there is no such thing or we would all be in Stepford.

      To Joe Corre, Gazer Frackman, Tina Rothery and all those who say no and are out there doing what they can on the front line and behind the scenes; from the future, looking back to this point in history, you will be all be acknowledged, appreciated and applauded. Thank you..



    “EMPOWERING PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN DECISIONS THAT CAN AFFECT THEIR ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH IS OF KEY IMPORTANCE TO UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE (UNECE). To this end, the present publication consists of two separate, but closely linked sets of recommendations (published on 14th December, 2015):

    Maastricht Recommendations on PROMOTING EFFECTIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS: prepared under the Aarhus Convention and

    GOOD PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: prepared under the Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention).”

    Both documents can be accessed via this link:



    “In many countries across the world active environmental citizenship is flourishing. Citizens are increasingly aware of their RIGHT TO HAVE A SAY ON THE ENVIRONMENT THEY LIVE IN AND TO DEMAND PARTICIPATION IN DECISIONS that may affect their own and their children’s lives.

    However, environmental democracy is not a given. Its increasing importance is a response to the implementation of numerous projects in the past that have had a significant impact on the environment and the livelihoods of people. These projects were pursued over the objections of the public and, in particular, those of vulnerable groups, such as children and women, rural communities and the poor.

    At the forefront of the push towards greater environmental democracy are the CONVENTION ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS — or Aarhus Convention — and the Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context.


    Based on the principle of the right to a healthy and favourable environment and the notions of SUSTAINABLE development and environmental democracy, these treaties put in place mechanisms to realize these ideals in practice.


    While negotiated in the framework of UNECE, both instruments are open to accession by non-UNECE States. They promote universal principles, & there is increasing interest in them both within the region & globally.

    The Recommendations on Public Participation developed under THESE TREATIES AIM TO ASSIST POLICYMAKERS, LEGISLATORS & PUBLIC AUTHORITIES IN THEIR DAILY WORK OF ENGAGING THE PUBLIC IN DECISION–MAKING PROCESSES. They provide helpful guidance for engaging all interested stakeholders, so as to improve decision-making, planning & the implementation of policies & programmes at all levels.

    In addition, the Recommendations will contribute to Government efforts to tackle poverty & inequality by ensuring that all persons, including the poorest segments of society & rural communities, are given the opportunity to participate in decisions that affect them &, as a result, to benefit from the income generated from economic activities.


    I am therefore convinced that these Recommendations will also help to pursue a people-centred post-2015 development agenda & SUSTAINABLE development goals.”

    Christian Friis Bach

    Executive Secretary
    United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

    The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) was set up in 1947 by UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC and SOCIAL COUNCIL (ECOSOC)*. It is one of five regional commissions of the United Nations. UNECE’s major aim is to promote pan-European economic integration.**


    UN Good Practice For Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment & Decision Making (December, 2015)

    Also, see:


    Click to access FC_UKFS_for_Planners.pdf

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.