Jan 212010
 

Our rights are denied, complains Ger Colleran, editor of the Irish Daily Star.

What rights do you suppose he’s talking about?  Is it his right to freedom of expression?

No.

Freedom of association?

Not that.

Freedom of movement?

Not that either.

Haiti Appeal

What Colleran is complaining about is this.  Jean Treacy, a witness in the Eamonn Lillis murder trial, was allowed to leave the newly-built courthouse by a back door, depriving the news photographers of an opportunity to take her picture.

This, in Colleran’s view, is a denial of his rights.  His rights!

In a spectacular display of pomposity, he spoke on the lunchtime news about the media’s right to report the conduct of a trial and the public’s right to see justice conducted in the open.

This is how detached from reality the people in the comic-press have become.  They think they matter.  They believe that somehow a publication obsessed with raddled old strippers and alcoholic footballers has a contribution to make in grown-up matters.

In the world inhabited by Ger Colleran, such rights extend to taking pictures of a woman in the street.  In Colleran’s world, justice isn’t simply taking place within the courtrom, but also in the street where his dogs prowl with their cameras at the ready.  This woman was charged with nothing, convicted of nothing and has done nothing wrong.  Yet, in Ger Colleran’s opinion, she must submit to his will so that he can pander to slack-jawed curiosity and sell more copies of his comic.

This is what Ger Colleran considers to be justice. He believes that his tabloid is in some way important to civil society, and not simply a thing used by breakfast-roll man to look up the soccer results and the horseracing.

That sort of self-importance marks Ger Colleran out as a spectacular but not uncommon, fool.

Note to Ger Colleran and Daily Star empoyees commenting here:

The trial is being heard in public. Anyone can attend.

You are not important. Your pictures are not part of the trial. They have nothing to do with the administration of justice. They are simply titillation for your idiot readership. Get a grip.

  61 Responses to “Irish Daily Star Employs Hypocritical Arrogant Fool as Editor”

Comments (61)
  1.  

    True for you Bock. Ms Treacy is another victim of the whole saga. As I recall she is a good looking girl, I wonder if she were less attractive would Colleran be getting so excited. Know what I mean Ger?

  2.  

    BOCK! I’m surprised – a fool? Surely not?
    Are you not familiar with the Biblical directive that we should never call anyone a fool? It’s true; that is a very specific instruction; all the way from God Themselves. (there’s three of Them)

    But for sure, that plonker is a gomb, a gormless excuse for a galoot that my granny would have clobbered with her handbag.

    I never buy that crappy excuse for a newspaper either.

  3.  

    Jesus, did anyone hear the crap that was the interview between the two Gers on The Last Word???

  4.  

    I heard that “discussion”. Very unprofessional of all concerned. Matt Cooper and the producers should have known Ger Colleran’s form before putting him head to head with Gerald Keane. Colleran must have thought all his Christmases came at once when he heard who else was going to be on a live radio show with him because he had no intention of entering into a constructive debate on the topic. He was just hell bent on having a go at Keane from the get go. They should never use a “celebrity” solicitor for a debate on a genuine matter in my opinion and should never ever use Colleran for anything whatsoever.

  5.  

    I just don’t get this “public have a right to know” rubbish. I have no interest in what that particular witness looks like. It is no business of anyone except the unfortunate families involved…….

  6.  

    It’s nonsense. Colleran is intoxicated by the sound of his own voice, and by the fact that nobody in the Star dares to argue with him. People like that come to believe their own bullshit.

    He’s correct to say that a photographer has the right to snap anyone in the street, but he fails to understand that people don’t have an obligation to present themselves for his apes to take a picture of them.

    His argument was that the witness should have been served up in front of his photographers, to satisfy the demands of the dimwits who buy his paper.

    I suppose he’s so used to throwing his weight around with his staff that he now believes everyone else is under his control as well. DId you hear what a tinker he made of hiimself arguing with Gerard Keane on the Last Word?

    The man is a thug.

  7.  

    and the Star outsells The Irish Times,no wonder we’re in the shit,doomed we are…

  8.  

    Given Geraldines groupie like editorial on Obama’s problems with the Boston party the other day I’m not so sure about that Johnny.

  9.  

    The point about public interest is that justice must be seen to be done in public. In this case the gardai have taken it upon themselves to protect a witness from the media. The gardai have no role to play in the protection of the identity of witnesses unless their lives or wellbeing are in danger. In this case the gardai have clearly gone beyond their role and are wasting the taxpayer’s money on an exercise that has nothing to do with them. It’s not just that they whisked her out a back door, they also set up a roadblock to prevent one photographer getting near her and employed an entourage of gardai to get her to and from the building without being seen. That is not a valid use of the taxpayer’s money. And if any of you think that RTE and the blessed Irish Times aren’t out looking for her picture you are bigger fools than I already suspect you to be.

  10.  

    It was a source of saddness to find on returning from living in London that the scabloids had established oirish editions. It was even more saddening to see Irish people buy these “newspapers” by the forest load. These are some of the most racial, xenophobic yet banal and meaningless publications in the world. My Saturday afternoon pint is increasingly within the realms of the football shirt wearing scabloid reading morons that I thought I left in Blighty.

  11.  

    no doubt the blessed Times will print Treacy’s photo,after the Sun,Moon or Star does so first,together with their article of rightous indignation against ‘gutter press’

  12.  

    The point of holding trials like this one in open court is so that the public can see and hear justice being done.
    The press (whether you like it or not) are present to act as the eyes and ears of the public – who cannot be present – to inform them of what is happening in the courtroom.
    It doesn’t matter whether you consider to this to be voyeuristic. That justice be seen to be done is a fundamental pillar of any democracy.
    Gardai yesterday used public funds to trample on the rights of journalists, photographers and the public.
    Will bloggers like Bock be talking the same crap when the people who robbed this country blind – bankers, developers and corrupt politicians are shielded from the public gaze in the same way?
    A very dangerous precedent was set yesterday.

  13.  

    Unstranger Thanks for resurecting the expression ” Galoot ” have’nt heard that in an age ! very apt.

  14.  

    Attorney – as a big fool, I humbly ask your advice. What part of the judicial process is served by a newspaper photographing a witness?

    Johno — Did you not know that the case is being held in open court? Shame on you. The press are free to attend and report on the hearings at all times. Now what’s your point?

    Regarding your question about my position on the secrecy surrounding the inquiry into Tony O Reilly’s pals, if you’d bothered to look you’d have seen the post immediately before the one you were instructed to comment on.

    http://bocktherobber.com/2010/01/banking-inquiry

    But that wasn’t the errand you were sent on, was it?

    ________________________

    I’m guessing that Attorney and Johno might have some tenuous connection with the gutter press, but of course that might be an entirely mistaken assumption. Still, their comments have that self-righteous, hypocritical, tabloid ring to them. What do you reckon?

    Nevertheless, whether they are or aren’t members of the comic media, their sudden — and defensive — arrival would have to set alarm bells clanging, wouldn’t you think?

    Get out there lads and call that Bock fucker names.

    OK, Ger. No problem Boss. Whatever you say

  15.  

    Hmmm….the thing I find most disturbing about this whole scenario is who told the cops to smuggle a totally innocent witness into a courtroom? How do you go about doing this? I’ve testified in court (albeit not a murder trial) as an innocent witness and nobody asked me would I like to be smuggled into the courtroom. Is there a form ya fill out? Did I miss it? Is this gonna be a everyday thing now? Will we have the establishment of the Smugglers division of the Gardai now? Eyepatches and Yo-ho-ho’s all round?..but all jokes aside Bock, I think your right..That woman presented herself in open court and testified in public in front of reporters and her peers,so her civil duty is satisfied. The fact that the photographers couldnt get a shot is tough shit. Cameras are not allowed in Courts for a bloody good reason.(and Im a photographer).The danger in this is that now snappers are gonna find out where witness live and start hounding their homes in search of the photo. Sad,but very true. A very dangerous precedent, don’t you think? Especially with high profile witnesses. And I bet if you open the Star today they have some form of photo anyway……

  16.  

    As far as I know, the new court is designed to allow witnesses privacy entering and leaving.

    However, all this false concern for the transparency of the trial is nothing more than self-serving hypocrisy, since press photographers have no role in the trial. They seem to be suggesting that a witness’s arrival and departure are part of the formal process. I suppose the delusion arose because these characters spend their lives hanging around street corners accosting people and they truly believe such behaviour is normal. For them, I suppose, the alternative is to acknowledge how pointless and irrelevant their lives are.

  17.  

    I coundn’t agree more with you dazman, the witness did her civil duty in an open court, her face means nothing to the readers of these rag papers and to imply otherwise by some other posters here and that galoot (thanks Unstranger) Ger Colleran is nonsense. I also do not see the gardai escorting the woman from the courthouse as a waste of taxpayers money, I’m asuming she is a taxpayer like the many of us left and I too would appreciate some aid in avoiding the hounds on the front steps if ever I am to serve as a witness, and unless we find that extra gardai were called in and payed overtime or something like that then I have no problem with it. There obviously had to be a reason for her “covert” in and outings but thats not any of my business, as far as the case is concerned I only wish to see justice done involving the actual murder, not how pissed off some twat is he didnt get a picture of a innocent citizen doing her civil duty.
    None of these vultures deserve to be heard and 9 times out of 10 neither are the photos that are printed.
    My day passes just fine when I dont have to see on the cover of a rag some drunk emotionally damaged celebrity getting out of a taxi looking mouldy. How a witnesses face every became “news worthy” just beats me.

  18.  

    Very true Bock, it’s their delusion and blindsight of reality which is the problem here and their own bloated self worth.

  19.  

    @attorney / johnno:

    A waste of the taxpayer’s money? what the fcuk? We pay our taxes in order (amongst other things) to be afforded the protection by our state that this witness enjoyed, from cretins like the tabloid press.

    “That justice be seen to be done is a fundamental pillar of any democracy” – rubbish.

    That Justice is known to have been SERVED is a fundamental pillar of SOCIETY, regardless of how they elect their government.

    The bankers are another matter, since what they did caused a national crisis and ruined thousands of lives. That is entirely different to this woman, who has been called to give evidence in a trial with no suggestion that she might be involved in the crime.

  20.  

    Id say at least one of those commenters is a hack. Possibly freelance, trying to lick Ger’s arse. The attempt to change the subject is classic Daily Star.

    What about the bankers? This is about tabloid vultures. It’s the same as Colleran on TodayFM evading the issue by shouting about Gerald Kean’s drink-driving conviction, which had nothing at all to do with the issue.

    Typical side-of-the-mouth sleveen shit of the kind that has screwed up our country. Colleran showed himself up for a loudmouth clown with his behaviour in that exchange.

  21.  

    Excellent post, Bock. You’ve nailed the real issues very elegantly.

  22.  

    There’s a few photographers that work on different papers lying around this site regularly, I would agree that the paper is entitled to get photographs taken in a public place. I really disagree however, that they have a right to have a witness of any kind lined up for them.
    Witnesses are there only to give evidence for the public good and the woman probably had to comply in this case with a “Subpoena”. It’s bad enough that they have to have their names spread all over these toilet papers (Star is a little rough for my posterior, the Sun takes it better in my opinion once a little Aloe is added, now that’s recycling….) not to mind having to see an 8 * 4 shot of their own faces for the world to see as well.
    Why should anyone be forced to run a gauntlet of paps for doing their civic duty?
    Once someone is convicted by a jury of their peers, that is a different story however and here is where the Star and their ilk can’t seem to differentiate between the innocent bystanders and the criminals. In my opinion criminals have given up their rights when they commit the acts they do. They deserve to have their privacy removed and be visible for everyone to recognise in the future, They should have to run the gauntlet and be put in the public eye.
    It’s strange that I can tell the difference though? is it because I have more than half a brain? Do you remember Colleran on that flaming “irish apprenticy” type program a couple of years back? He came across as an asshole then too.

  23.  

    Jesus Bock I’ve just listened to the “interview” on podcast.

    I think you’re being too kind to Colleran.

    Who the fuck does he think he is? One guest trying to dictate to the host who he should and shouldn’t be interviewing!

    He comes across like a real fucking muppet.

    PS I’d love to know what he’d say if he or one of his cronies is caught drunk driving?

  24.  

    What if it was one of these so called gangland murder trials? Then no one would argue, that anyone brave enough to take the stand should get the protection of the state.
    So as the state sees one murder trial equal to any other, all witnesses should be treated the same.

  25.  

    @Mark
    Is there a link for this podcast? I am dying to hear it…

    yeah – Colleran has been a sanctimonious tosser each and every time I have seen him on TV

  26.  
  27.  

    I don’t believe the facility existed before the new court was constructed.

  28.  

    Ther was a very interesting case Last year involving The Star and family of a murder victimThe horrific murder of a gay man took place in Contarf in September 2007,The violentlymurdered man who was the victim of a serial predator and robbed of over €5,500 was named and shamed before The family had even identified the body. The front page suggesting lewd kinky sex was being engaged in. The victim being described as being “Trussed up lik a pig” by an article by michael O, Toole. The state pathologist John Curtis released a letter stating that there was nothing at the sceneof the crime or the subsequent postmortem to indicate anything of a sexual nature occured. The Judge found that everything that the fmily claimed was true an appropriate and went unchallenged by The Star. Ger Colleran had nothing to say than.He cost a good man his reputation and th family who took legal action to redeem it over€110.000. Not to mention their grief and suffering. Ger Colleran has been strangely silent over this case.ger is appearing a sad little man by all accounts. When a journalist or editor have to fabricate lies to sell newspapers. They have kissed there credibility if they ever had any goodbye.

  29.  

    Daniel — This wouldn’t be the first time Colleran used sensational stories about a murder victim to boost circulation. He did something similar when he was editor of the Kerryman, all in the name of journalism, of course, because after all, he is a journalist, and a committed one at that.

    Isn’t he?

    Hmm?

  30.  

    i’d imagine that having her photo splashed about the papers could seriously harm her future business. she got caught up in a bad situation. she came forth and gave her evidence. to my way of thinking thats her civic duty done.i don’t think she’s required to pose for anyone on the courthouse steps. its about time thats the privacy of witnesses is protected.

  31.  

    The Daily Star seems to think witnesses should be compelled to pose for its photographers. Next thing you know, Colleran will want to to be sitting on the bench.

  32.  

    Bock
    As a former employee at the Star I feel it fitting it change the subject. This is a well written and entertaining post, like most of your posts. Now that blogs are common as muck, we forget just how great it is that you, and we can voice our opinions freely an openly on the blog platform. When you take money to write news stories, or take press photos, all integrity leaves the building. The words are never really your own. Big brother is always watching, or in this case, signing the pay cheques. Long live freedom of speech, something that has no price. Long live the blog.

  33.  

    This is really getting silly. Unfortunately you people don’t understand what you are talking about so it will have to be explained in the sort of detail usually reserved for childrens’ stories.
    You see, this girl is a prosecution witness. She is therefore helping the gardai and the director of public prosecutions in this case. She has been afforded aid by the gardai which is not forthcoming to other witnesses. Eamon Lillis, who is an innocent man, has not been afforded the same benefit. He has entered through the front doors like anyone else to be filmed by RTE, TV 3 and pictured by all the press, not just tabloids. None of the defence witnesses called in this case or any other case have been, or are likely to be, afforded the same benefit. If we are to allow the gardai to decide who can and can’t be identified in court cases we are setting a very dangerous precedent. Also, you morons who keep bleeting on about the tabloids seem to be blissfully unaware that RTE, the Irish Times, the Irish Independent, the Sunday Tribune et al are also up in arms about the State’s intrusion and interference in this case.
    And by the way, I certainly do not work for Ger Colleran and I agree that his performance on TodayFM was ridiculous. What you are suggesting is that anyone who disagrees with you must have ulterior motives. That’s the kind of arrogant position that only a snot-nosed, brainless twat would take.
    Just to wrap up, Steve, sorry to say that justice being served and being seen to be served in public is a constitutional obligation in this country. Its significance has been upheld by the Supreme Court on many occasions. You should educate yourself before you attack other, smarter people.

  34.  

    Forget your insults and answer the question. Are press photographers part of the judicial process or not?

    (And while you’re at it, please read the comments policy)

  35.  

    Sorry Bock, I didn’t realise that was the only issue being considered here. Having read your article and the various posts by others I thought a number of issues had been raised. If it now suits you to narrow it down to that one point then fine but don’t pretend that’s the only point being made here. As it happens, the press and other media are part of the judicial process. The Supreme Court, and you can look up the ruling yourself because I couldn’t be bothered, has decided that the only way justice can be seen to be done in public is for the press and broadcast media to report and to be given the freedom to report on judicial matters. The identification of people involved in those processes is part and parcel of that. It is irresponsible to say that the gardai should be allowed to decide how justice is reported on a whim. It is also unfair for the State to offer protection to its witnesses that it would not afford to other witnesses. To say that she deserves protection because she is innocent of any crime is to suggest that Eamon Lillis is not deserving of such protection because he is guilty. Of course Steve may disagree, but Mr Lillis is in fact an innocent man. I hope that clears up matters. Also, I won’t be reading your comment policy because that sounds like an extremely boring exercise. Cheerio.

  36.  

    We can deal with the rest of the issues in due course.

    For now, I’ve asked you a question Are you saying press photography is part of the judicial process?

  37.  

    I have explained the issue in my previous post. I suggest you read it and try really hard to understand what I am saying. The media are part of the judicial process. Photographers are part of the media. The identification of witnesses is part of justice being done and being seen to be done in public. If you can’t understand that then I suggest you quit blogging and go back to reading Ann and Barry.

  38.  

    It is not the role of the media to identify witnesses for the court. The witnesses are identified in court by those appointed to do so, not by hacks with cameras.

    The trial is taking place inside the courtroom, which is open to anyone who wishes to attend, including journalists.

    The trial is not taking place in the open air where the photographers are trying to take their pictures for the titillation of Daily Star readers.

    For some reason, you seem unable to grasp this, probably deliberately. You’re digging a hole here.

  39.  

    Actually, it is the role of the media to identify witnesses and report on all proceedings of the court to the public. I never suggested it was the role of the media to identify witnesses to the court. I repeat, under our Constitution justice must be done, and be seen to be done, in public. The Supreme Court upholds that the only means by which this can be achieved is for the media to report on court proceedings.
    How the media chooses to report on those proceedings cannot be decided by the Director for Public Prosecution, defence barristers and solicitors or by Bock the Robber. The identification of witnesses is part of justice being done in public, whether it suits your argument or not.
    This is a simple point. I can’t understand why you are finding it so difficult to grasp. Seriously though, if you go to any good book shop there are literally hundreds of children’s books that would be perfect for you.

  40.  

    You’re avoiding my point: the trial is taking place inside the courtroom and not out on the street. The media are free to attend the trial. Are they not?

    Please confirm that you understand the court case is happening inside the courtroom and not outside.

  41.  

    I can see where the attorney is coming from and I sense the frustration in the posts.

    Whats excercising my faculties is what exactly spurred the Gardaí to adopt this particular strategy in this particular case.
    Is it some as yet unannounced general policy ?
    Is it a local decision ?
    If so taken by which officer and under what particular leglislation ?
    Was it taken in response to a request or approach?
    If so was that approach through official or UNofficial channels and by whom ?
    Its nothing to do with the Media at all in my view,but I am always suspicious when a body as entrenched as an Garda Siochana suddenly gallop off on an,as yet unannounced,new course of action.

  42.  

    Of course it is taking place inside a courtroom. What part of my post do you not understand? I have made my point as clearly as possible. What in what I have written would make you think that I labour under the delusion that the trial is taking place outdoors? I genuinely believe you should concentrate more on your education and less on your blogging.

  43.  

    Attorney. I’ll say this once.

    Assuming you’re not twelve years old, I’ll ask you to drop the juvenile sarcasm and address the facts in an adult way. It reflects badly on you and weakens your argument. It also impresses nobody, except perhaps you. If you want to play with yourself, please do so in private.

    If you wish to deal in facts, you are welcome to do so, but if you continue with ad hominem silliness, your comments will go into the moderation queue, and those that contain childish, snide comments will be held back. The choice is up to you.

    If you’re capable of conducting a civil debate, this is your opportunity to demonstrate it.

    Alec — Prhaps a case should made for shielding all witnesses from the vultures.

  44.  

    Are you also going to moderate the comments of people who called Ger Colleran, among other things, a “fool” and his readership “idiots”?
    Among the insults flung at this named person, including by yourself, are that he is a thug, an arrogant fool, a plonker, a gomb, a gormless excuse for a galoot that my granny would have clobbered with her handbag.
    Your posters also make general attacks on the Irish public with such offensive references as: “football shirt wearing scabloid reading morons.”
    But of course, you are above reproach.

  45.  

    If Ger Colleran wants to comment here, he can. I’m asking you personally to refrain from ad hominem remarks that get in the way of the substance behind this discussion.

    This means you. Are you capable of debating in a civil manner or are you not?

    It’s a very simple challenge but I don’t know if you’re up to it.

  46.  

    To be honest, I’m bored now. I don’t think you’re smart enough to engage in a reasoned debate and I’ve made my point. This is my last post.

  47.  

    Pathetic.

  48.  

    The News of the World and the Sunday World appear to have beaten good ole Ger to the first “long awaited” photo(s) of the witness. Why the frenzy to see her – what the hell does it matter what she looks like? The only thing that tabloid editors want is sales of papers, they are not interested in justice, rights, judicial process……….

  49.  

    Who knows?

    These people are so shallow they think they matter. Just look at the childish nonsense that hack calling itself Attorney has been spouting. There is no end to the arrogance of these people, nor any end to their stupidity.

  50.  

    ………but is (s)he a hack or an attorney, that is the question????

  51.  

    A hack, I’m guessing. A graduate from the Ger Colleran school of bluster and bombast.

  52.  

    I agree with the gist of the post, but the debate above got a bit childish on all sides. Where did Attorney give the impression that the hearing was being held outside? Childish.

  53.  

    I’ll explain that. He says that photographers are part of the judicial process. Since photographers are not permitted inside the courtroom, the only other possible interpretation is that he thinks the case is also taking place where photography is permitted: in the open air.

    In what sense is that analysis childish?

  54.  

    Sadly, I see where the attorney is coming from – for justice to be seen to be done the public have a right to know who the witness is and the evidence they provide the court. Unfortunately to know who the witness includes putting a face to the name.

    The evidance provided by the witness can be noted and be printed but no photographs from within the court are allowed so photographers have no choice but to hang around outside and hope to capture a usable image.

    Personally I think all witnesses, who are’nt the defendant, should be afforded the same level of protection.

    Lastly Alec Smart’s comment number 41 are the real questions that need answering – Who instigated all this???? Is this official policy now?

  55.  

    Photographs in the paper are not required to identify witnesses. That’s simply untrue.

  56.  

    I agree with you bock – And I think all witnesses should be afforded this protection.

    I think the 2 points the Attorney was trying to make though is that you need to be able to put a face to the name – (I dont agree) and as Eamon Lillis is a witness in the trial, why isnt he afforded the same courtesy. (I believe as he is the defendant he is rightly denied this.)

    The rags use the photos to use up printable space – save on the amount of actual writing that needs to be done.

  57.  

    It amounts to this. The press are demanding to have people delivered up in front of their cameras. It’s nonsense.

  58.  

    at what stage does it become harassment from the newspapers. Judging by the papers and news reports this morning, this lady seems to be under seige from them.

  59.  

    To Ger Colleran
    Was watching the Frontline last night and just a short note to say very well said last night. It is about time that someone told it as it is.
    Geoff Bell

  60.  

    Did you know that in May 2005 the Editor of the Star piad 400 Euro to a sex offender who had just been released. The 400 Euro was paid for photos that the sex offender took of himself in O Connell Street, the next day the Star published the photos claiming that a Star photographer had take the pics – so the Editor of the Star is much more than you think –

  61.  

    Thank God this “argument” is over and done with – but it really is fascinating.

    Whoever these people are that are posting in favour of allowing witness photographs to be seen – and I strongly suspect them to be photographers, hacks or perhaps even editors – one thing is clear: they are remarkably insecure. They really don’t like being called on their immoral BS. They’ll dissimulate to no end – in brick-like prose, no less (I guess when you can’t use your stock of preformed tab-speak adjectives your sentences crumble under their own weight) – but they won’t answer the question. They remind me of the bigot that can’t admit what he thinks while in a room full of respectable people.

    “Do you hate foreigners?”

    “I believe that it is every person’s right to hate foreigners.”

    “No, I’m asking, do YOU hate foreigners?”

    “I strongly disagree with the current governments immigration policy.”

    “I think you might be evading the question…”

    “I don’t know what part you didn’t understand – I’ve been quite clear, you idiot…”

    “No, you haven’t answered my question and please don’t call me an idiot…”

    “You’re a big penis-face” – [reaches for phone and texts ‘CAL DA GOONS, DIS INTLECTUUL PRIK IS GIVIN ME DA GRIEF’]

 Leave a Reply

(required)

(required)