Tag Archives: Stephen Sedley

Diary Blog, 23 March 2025, including a few thoughts about Philby

Morning music

Historical footnote

[Philby on a 5-kopeck late-Soviet commemorative postage stamp, and described as “Soviet Razvedchik“, a term which might be translated as “intelligencer”, rather than the grubbier-sounding “spy” (in Russian, “shpion”); “razvedchik” is a more polite or dignified term]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/22/mi5-surveillance-british-spy-kim-philby-made-public

Secret surveillance of Britain’s ­notorious double agent, Kim Philby, made public for the first time in archived documents, reveals how keenly the Security Service wanted to confirm or disprove early suspicions of his high-level treachery.

In daily bulletins submitted to MI5 in November 1951, undercover operatives describe how Philby, codenamed Peach, moved about London.

They said he gave “no outward sign of being either nervous or on the alert, but your well trained man should not do so; every movement is natural – again as it should be”

[Guardian]

The whole Philby thing has always been hugely overblown. Philby himself has been over-rated, too. Superficially well-educated, yes, but really a rather dogmatic Marxist-Leninist who, under other formative circumstances, might have been like some of the other basically mediocre professional-level bourgeois Englishmen I have met in my life, and who were not in secret-intelligence work but, variously, Roman Catholic converts, and/or military officers or barristers or other activity.

Philby was certainly no great mind, though he evidently thought himself very clever. Likewise, he was a bit of a plodder ideologically.

I recall that Philby wrote in his supposed memoirs (possibly part-ghosted by KGB helpers), My Silent War, or elsewhere, that “you choose your side and stick with it“, i.e. rather as others do to the Labour or Conservative parties, or to (the contemporary British obsession) football clubs. Unthinking loyalty. Stick-in-the-mud loyalty.

The puffing of Philby as the “masterspy”, or even “spymaster”, suited both sides in the Cold War: the Soviet side getting the gloss of having not only suborned Philby and other “Establishment” Englishmen to the Marxist/Soviet cause, but also having outplayed Western intelligence agencies in the spy game.

As for the British part of the Western side, Philby’s prominence could be presented as an example of why pervasive “security” (and the whole Cold War stance) was necessary. Also, his supposed “brilliance” in a way bolstered the reputation of institutions such as the more expensive English schools (Philby was at Westminster School) and, of course, the supposedly elite universities, in particular Cambridge.

The whole “Cambridge spies” story tends to puff the reputation of SIS and MI5 (despite their having been outplayed) by making their role seem terribly important. One scribbler even penned a well-known book called Philby— The Spy Who Betrayed A Generation, as if the Cambridge Spies were pretty much the centrepiece of British history since the 1930s, rather than an obscure footnote to it.

In the 1930s (when Philby started to work for Soviet organizations), there was (in the first half of the decade) the Great Depression, and the initial triumph of National Socialism in Germany. In the middle of the 1930s to 1939, the Spanish Civil War, while in Britain itself, the economy was recovering and society changing .

Then, in the early/mid 1940s, there was the titanic Second World War (in the Soviet Union, the Great Patriotic War).

In Britain, after 1945, there were the great social changes of the 1950s and 1960s. By that time, the “Cambridge Spies” were mostly not even in the UK. Maclean and Burgess had fled in 1951, and Philby was in journalistic exile in the Middle East. The economic and social changes in the UK were the main events, together with the start of the disastrous migration-invasion of non-whites into the UK, and Britain’s retreat from Empire.

The “Cambridge Spies” were not even footnotes to much of that. Near-irrelevant, despite the obsessions of the Westminster Bubblers and newspaper scribblers.

What damaged Britain in the 1940s through to the 1960s, and then on to today, was not a few spies passing on information to the Soviet Union, but the abandonment of Empire, the importation of blacks and browns in vast numbers, the cultural decadence etc.

You often see Philby and his fellow Cambridge spies described as “upper-class” or even “aristocratic”. In fact, not one was of “aristocratic” background, though all (except Cairncross) were affluent or wealthy. Philby’s own father was from an affluent government-connected family [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_John_Philby] but a fact generally ignored or covered-up is that Philby’s mother, Dora, was half-Indian, a so-called “chi-chi” (pron. “shi-shi”), which may have subtly affected his loyalties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Philby

General Kalugin, in his memoirs, describes how his superiors had the idea of using Philby, then in Moscow, as a kind of lure for potential agents in the West, by showing that he was respected, had a good life etc. His first meeting with the shambling drunken Philby makes a memorable picture.

Incidentally, Philby never learned to speak or read Russian beyond a rudimentary level, and had English-language books supplied to him via the KGB (presumably via people at the London embassy, and the diplomatic bag).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Kalugin

In the early 1990s, sometime around 1994, I was slightly acquainted with a Russian businessman living in London, and with an office in Regent Street, who had some legal business (I was a barrister at the time). We had lunch at least once at my Inn (of Court), Lincoln’s Inn. I recall that the Spanish waitress was very taken with “Ed” [Edvard] and his rather Scandinavian looks (he was from the Baltic regions) and even asked me later if I might effect an introduction for her (that never happened).

“Ed” was quite open about the fact that, prior to his taking to capitalist business activity, he had been in the KGB, though that would only have been, at a guess, for a relatively few years. He recalled having been at a lecture or two given by Philby in Moscow (he said that that had been at the Lubyanka).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubyanka_Building

Small world. “Six degrees of separation” etc…

Incidentally, those comments in the Guardian from the MI5 surveillance directorate in 1951 do tend to beg the question; after all, if a surveillance target is acting naturally, then either he is not guilty, or is literally acting (and/or has been trained to act) naturally, so in fact may be guilty. If, though, the target looks nervous, looks for reflections in shop windows etc, does that mean that he is guilty, or is he just a nervous wreck and/or afraid of being thought guilty? Wilderness of mirrors.

Tweets seen

The sheer hypocrisy of the Labour Friends of Israel “Labour” government is simply unbelievable. Surely Liz Kendall, Rachel Reeves, Torsten Bell, Starmer-stein etc can see that? Or are they so removed from truth and decency that they cannot see it? That might be even more alarming.

I should imagine that even Labour-inclined voters will be voting Reform UK (or staying home) at the Runcorn and Helsby by-election, in order to send a message (and/or a kick) to this horrifyingly callous and irredeemably incompetent misgovernment.

As to Conservative Party loyalists in the area, I should say that the Cons have no chance— so vote Reform in order to stick it to fake Labour.

“Rachel from Accounts” knows no more about economics than George Osborne during 2010-2015. Both promulgating counter-productive fake “austerity”.

See also: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/23/social-care-cuts-benefits-disability-labour-whitehall.

Given that there is a lot of talk about changes to special educational needs provision and reform plans for the NHS, we should worry about what the government might focus on next. Equally alarming, it seems to me, is a belief in Downing Street that reviving the UK demands embracing the wonders of artificial intelligence, which Keir Starmer believes will have an almost magical effect on everything from social work to education, and realise his new dream of “totally rewiring government”. Because this is an administration so lacking in everyday humanity, that is a much more scary prospect than he and his colleagues seem to realise.

[John Harris in The Guardian]

I should not be surprised to find (if I am still around) that, somewhere down the line, in 5+ years’ time, the members of the present Cabinet will find themselves up against a wall.

Send her back to Nigeria.

So 1930s Germany encourages Jews to depart = bad, but 2020s Israel encourages Palestinian Arabs to depart = good?

Will the new office be called something like “Palestinian Resettlement”?

Sumy Oblast or region is in NE Ukraine. Sumy city is NNW of Kharkov; about 150 miles from Kharkov by road but only about 90 miles as the crow flies. About 200 miles east of Kiev.

So Russian forces are in Sumy Oblast now. There seem to be Russian advances in all material parts of the overall front. Kiev-regime forces are falling back.

This blog has been referring to fake Labour as “Labour-label” since its inception in late 2016, certainly since 2019..

Why do many think it impossible that “the lion will lie down with the lamb” in a future age? All things are possible.

Talking point

More tweets

See previous blog posts for more, using the search box.

See also:

For those who are unaware of the outline of James Wilson’s (now-successful) libel case against three defendants (all Jews; in one case, possibly only a part-Jew), the defendants were advised and/or represented by Jewish solicitors and barristers who seem to have been, all or variously, professionally negligent and/or incompetent.

Mark Lewis and Daniel Berke were the main solicitors for the defendants, Beth Grossman of Doughty Street Chambers was the barrister (possibly the only barrister; I do not know, and only heard of her recently, via Wilson’s Twitter/X account and Substack blog).

Lewis’s reputation“? Ha ha! Only ignorant fools think that that is worth more than a plugged nickel. I have blogged many times about him, over many years; he has never once threatened to sue me (no doubt partly by reason of my impecuniosity, but truth as defence –or other defences— may also have much to do with it).

See also:

Feel free to republish any of my blog posts. After all, I was a barrister until a pack of Jews procured my wrongful and, it turned out later, actually unlawful disbarment (in 2016): see

Ha. Amusing. As a matter of fact, I myself appeared as Counsel in the High Court several times before Sedley, a High Court judge at the time (early 1990s), notably in a case involving a former member of the Angolan Secret Service.

I doubt that there are many barristers who have never suffered excruciating embarrassment in open court. For example…

Late tweets

“They” are just appalling.

Late music

[Kreshchatik, the main street in Kiev, in 1943; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khreshchatyk#World_War_II]
[Kreshchatik, 1980s, under late-Soviet rule]

History moves on. Life moves on.

Diary Blog, 31 May 2024, including General Election news and comment

Morning music

Election news

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13477879/Only-one-four-voters-Tories-poll-Labour.html

Rishi Sunak has been given a glimmer of hope as a major new poll by Lord Ashcroft suggests that more than half of voters have yet to definitively make up their minds.

With less than five weeks until the General Election, the research shared exclusively with the Daily Mail found only four in ten have ‘definitely decided’ how to vote.

But in a sign of the mountain the Tories still have to climb, the poll gives Labour a 23 point lead. 

Overall, it puts Labour on a 47 per cent vote share, with the Tories on 24 per cent, and Reform UK on 11 per cent.”

Assuming honesty and relative accuracy of the poll, several points stand out for me.

Firstly, that this poll is not at all the “glimmer of hope” for Sunak and the Cons that the report accompanying it is spinning.

42% have “definitely decided” which way they are going to vote. Looking at recent polling elsewhere, that must greatly favour Labour. As for “...leaning towards a party” but “not definitely sure“, that could apply to any of the parties, but if most end up with Labour, then it is possible that Lab could end up, overall, topping 50%, leaving the Cons with a MP cadre in the single figures.

It might also mean, thinking of my previous speculation on the blog, that there are more people than polls suggest willing to vote Reform UK, if only as a protest, or as a method of giving the time-expired Conservative Party a kicking without having to vote Labour. “Secret” Reform UK voters. Do they even exist? We do not know. I think that they may exist, but in what numbers?

Anything up to 31% of eligible voters may not vote, it seems.

One big unanswered question is how many under-40s and especially under-25s will bother to vote, they being heavily pro-Labour.

On the other hand, the over-70s are the only age demographic more likely to vote Con than Lab. If significant numbers either vote Labour (unlikely) or Reform UK (much more likely) or simply abstain (not unlikely) then Sunak and the Cons really are in trouble.

Other takeaways include the fact (if it is a fact) that only 23% think that Sunak etc can do better than others at “running the economy” (Lab 37%; Don’t Know 39%, tellingly). For a Prime Minister with a banking and financial/business background, and who was, not so long ago, Chancellor of the Exchequer, that is very much a thumbs-down.

The voters’ assessments of the characters of Sunak and Starmer are not so very different.

Sunak is assessed by only 8% as being “up to the job“, while only 12% assess him as even being “competent“. That’s damning. (Starmer’s equivalent ratings were 18% and 21%, scarcely a ringing endorsement, but still far better than Sunak).

Ashford’s poll figures, fed into Electoral Calculus [https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll.html] suggest a result of Labour MPs 513, Cons 71, LibDems 31, SNP 12, Greens 2, Plaid 3, Reform 0, Northern Irish 18.

Very very bad for the Conservative Party, but not quite existentially so..

On that basis, there would still be a considerable Con bloc of 71 MPs, and the Cons would still be the official Opposition, however ineffective.

My own feeling, whether it be right or wrong, is still that the Cons may be reduced to below 50 MPs, and that the LibDems may exceed that by default (tactical voting), thus making the LibDems the Opposition in the Commons.

If that were to occur, the defeat would be existential for the Cons. No “bright young” (mostly idiot) careerists (think Liz Truss, once upon a time…) would want to join, and big donors would not bother to pump money into funding the Cons. A “death spiral”, as people say.

Election date— Thursday 4 July 2024. Less than 5 weeks to go.

Tweets seen

The American government seems to have lost, if not its mind, then any sense of perspective.

If Country A sells or, even worse, gives Country B arms and ammunition, and especially if that is with the express intent that Country B should attack the territory of Country C, then that is pretty close to being an act of war by Country A against Country C.

Stop this mad slide to a quite possible superpower nuclear war.

It is widely mooted that the combat-ready spearhead numbers no more than 30,000, if that. Maybe as low as 20,000. Plus about 5,000 Royal Marines under naval command. Plus 4,000 Gurkhas. Plus Reserves.

If UK society continues to slide, they may be used to control the situation in the “British” cities more than anything else.

More music

More tweets seen

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biranit]

An impressive show. Is it any more than that?

I do not have enough information to guess accurately at the likely outcome of the U.S. Presidential Election, but peace would be better served were Trump to be re-installed at the White House, no matter what his personal deficiencies.

I publicly disagreed with the IHRA definition of antisemitism by reference to the arguments of Sir Stephen Sedley (on any view a hugely respected jurist) that it protects Israel from legitimate criticism.

That led to people publishing confidential and dangerously defamatory information about me. And lots more people publishing crude and dehumanising abuse of me. And grotesque accusations of antisemitism about me. And 4 years of litigation where a total wing-nut UK Lawyer for Israel tried to bankrupt me. And a trial where witnesses made untrue or wildly exaggerated statements to try to ruin my reputation.

In the end I won, but my experience confirms Lemoine’s argument. It was awful and exhausting and no doubt intended to be so. Ending people’s careers for agreeing with Lemoine’s reasonable point of view is wrong and dangerous.”

[James Wilson]

Stephen Sedley. I remember him. I appeared in front of him as Counsel sometime around 1994 when he was a High Court judge (he was later a Lord Justice of Appeal). It was a matter involving the Angolan secret service. Sedley had had some previous experience in dealing with Angolan matters: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Sedley#Career. He gave me a very courteous hearing before politely refusing my judicial review application…

Perhaps there isn’t any such thing as the Israel lobby. Perhaps Israel is the only country on the planet without dedicated lobbyists. Perhaps organisations like We Believe in Israel, the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, and both the Labour and Conservative Friends of Israel, simply don’t exist.

Perhaps it’s simply untrue to say that people who are critical of Israel online, or supportive of Palestine, are bombarded by hostile replies from pro-Israel accounts.

Or perhaps, there’s a concerted effort by Israel’s advocates to warp and distort the definition of antisemitism to make it impossible to describe their activities. Was Faiza Shaheen wrong to apologise? I can understand why she did it. But nobody should have to apologise for liking a plain statement of fact.

Perhaps I imagined the evidence which clearly showed supporters of Israel working together to get information on me.

Perhaps I imagined them publishing confidential and dangerously defamatory information about me.

Perhaps I imagined lots more people publishing crude and dehumanising abuse of me. Perhaps I imagined the accusations of antisemitism about me.

Perhaps I imagined 4 years of litigation and the total wing-nut UK Lawyer for Israel trying to bankrupt me.

Perhaps I imagined the trial where supporters of Israel gave wildly exaggerated evidence to try to ruin my reputation.

Perhaps I imagined the judgment: https://bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/821.html.

[James Wilson].

One of the unreliable witnesses for the losing defendants in that case was Simon Myerson, a barrister and Recorder (p/t judge). Others (all Zionist Jews) were likewise not given much if any credence by the trial judge.

Laura Towler

I happened to see the announcement below.

https://www.patrioticalternative.org.uk/sam_melia_banned_access_children

It turns out that political prisoner Sam Melia is now being prevented from having access to his children. In fact, his wife cannot even tell him about them when she visits him. Disgraceful. These really are the tactics of a police state.

See also: https://www.givesendgo.com/sammelia

Incidentally, if anyone is in a generous mood, my own fundraiser is still running: https://www.givesendgo.com/GC14J.

More tweets

Ha. Horrible Jewish-lobby puppet. Useless too, it seems.

Late tweets seen

That should be Shai “Masot“, not “Mosat“, and certainly not “MOSSAD”. On the other hand…

Does that Israel-puppet get fed exactly what to say by some Israeli agency? Sounds like it.

This whole situation is mad.

If a nuclear war happens, most of us will not live through it. The only hope will be, in that terrible contingency, that at some later point, after the Wagnerian devastation of Europe, a new society can emerge, on a post-Aryan basis, and then create the basis for a later super-race and super-culture: see https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/01/26/the-tide-is-coming-in-reflections-on-the-possible-end-of-our-present-civilization-and-what-might-follow/.

Late music

[Germany, 1945: “We are fighting for the future of our children!“]

Diary Blog, 28 January 2020

Monkey World UK…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7935957/Man-leaps-Old-Bailey-public-gallery-threatens-kill-QC-courtroom-riot-breaks-out.html

Jenrick attacks free speech and freedom of academic life (again)

Robert Jenrick, the horrible little pissant who is now a Cabinet minister, has announced that he is to cut funding to local councils and to universities that refuse to “adopt” the misnamed “International Definition of Antisemitism” (“Working Definition”, more properly).

https://antisemitism.uk/funding-may-be-cut-to-universities-and-councils-that-refuse-to-adopt-the-international-definition-of-antisemitism-robert-jenrick-announces-on-holocaust-memorial-day/

In fact, out of nearly 200 states in the world, only about a dozen have “adopted” this evil fake “definition” wholly, and another half dozen in part:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Definition_of_Antisemitism

The IHRA definition has been criticised, especially on the basis that it stifles free speech relating to criticism of Israeli actions and policies. Its adoption of the concept of new antisemitism, specifically connecting some criticism of Israel with antisemitism, has generated controversy.[16][17] High-profile controversies took place in the United Kingdom in 2011 within the University and College Union[18][19] and within the Labour Party in 2018. The definition has been contested by scholars of antisemitism for conflating antisemitism with criticism of the Israeli government, obstructing campaigning for the rights of Palestinians and being so vague as to fail the test of any definition – to be definitive. These include Brian Klug,[20] David Feldman,[21] and Antony Lerman;[14] jurists including Hugh Tomlinson,[22] Stephen Sedley,[23] Geoffrey Bindman,[24] and Geoffrey Robertson;[25] and one of the original drafters Kenneth S. Stern has opposed the misuse of the definition to suppress and limit free speech.” [Wikipedia]

To intrude a personal recollection, I see there the name of Stephen Sedley [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Sedley ], former judge of the Court of Appeal, before whom I appeared as Counsel on a few occasions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Definition_of_Antisemitism#Criticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Definition_of_Antisemitism#Legal

The main drafter of the working definition and its examples, Kenneth S. Stern, cautioned against the free speech implications of its use as a legal tool.[26] He has opposed efforts to enshrine it in legislation[98] and wrote a letter to members of the US Congress warning that giving the definition legal status would be “unconstitutional and unwise” in December 2016.[99] In 2011, he co-authored an article about how the ‘Working Definition’ was being abused in Title VI cases, because it was being employed in an attempt to “restrict academic freedom and punish political speech.” In November 2017, Stern explained to the US House of Representatives that the definition has been abused on various US university campuses. He warned that it could “restrict academic freedom and punish political speech” and questioned whether definitions created by minority groups should be legislatively enshrined, giving as one of several examples.” [Wikipedia]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Definition_of_Antisemitism#Original_drafter

Jenrick has “demanded” that councils and universities “adopt” the so-called” “definition” for about 6 months now, but he is generally regarded as such a pathetic little pissant that, so far, only 136 out of 343 have caved in to his demands by agreeing to “adopt” it.

Brave universities are fighting the Jewish-Zionist lobby and its political control, and refusing to accept such limitation on freedom (which in any case has no legal effect).

Jenrick is one of the worst pro-Zionist offenders in the present appallingly pro-Israel government, along with Theresa Villiers and Priti Patel. His wife is a Jewish lawyer and their children are being brought up as Jewish, to the extent that Jenrick himself apparently celebrates Jewish religious and cultural festivals etc.

It is to be hoped that universities and local authorities fight this attempt to criminalize or simply ban free speech and historical investigation, and do not “adopt” this “definition”, and/or (even if they do “adopt” it) then simply refuse to go further to attack free speech. They should deliberately ignore it. “I see no ships…”

Jenrick is also throwing public money at “holocaust” propaganda nonsense such as trips by schools to the “reconstruction” at former Auschwitz. Brainwashing of children.

Meanwhile, in Germany…

Jews could flee Germany on a ‘massive’ scale unless urgent action is taken against anti-Semitism, the foreign minister warned today.” [Daily Mail]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7931371/Jews-flee-Germany-massive-scale-unless-urgent-action-taken-says-foreign-minister.html

Is “warned” the right word?…

Germany will push for tougher legal consequences for anti-Semitic acts, he said, and for more EU nations to make Holocaust denial a crime – currently illegal in over a dozen member states including Germany, Belgium and Italy.” [Daily Mail]

Berlin will also step up the battle against anti-Jewish hate speech and disinformation on social media, Maas wrote, saying perpetrators ‘should feel the full force of the law across Europe’.” [Daily Mail]

No doubt that little pissant Jenrick would love to see all criticism of Jewish behaviour criminalized in the UK too, together with any attempt to really examine the “holocaust” farrago. Fortunately, Brexit renders such repression less likely.

What about that German minister? Until today, I knew little of him:

“Heiko Maas. Awards:

In early 2017, Maas proposed the “Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz” (“network enforcement law”) to combat online hate speech and fake news.[37][38][39] The United Nations responded with a letter, warning that several democratic freedoms were under attack.[40] The proposed law was met with criticism throughout Germany from industry associations, IT experts, scientists, net-politicians, lawyers, privacy activists and civil rights campaigners who regard it as unconstitutional and defiant of EU-law and warn of “catastrophic effects for freedom of expression“, causing online platforms to drastically censor online speech, resulting in privatization of legal enforcement and abolishing online anonymity.

Maas earned the nickname ‘Prohibition Minister’ by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung for his many unapproved legislative proposals.[12]”

In June 2017, Maas disclosed to the Bild newspaper that he was the recent recipient of an unprecedented number of death threats including a bullet casing in the mailbox of his private residence. He attributed the threats to dissatisfaction with current German immigration policy.” [Wikipedia]

Sounds like many Germans consider Heiko Maas “unerwunscht” (unwanted)!

Musical interlude

Huawei

Apparently, some “Conservative” Party MPs are so angry about Chinese involvement in  UK mobile telephone technology that they might rebel in the Commons (pointlessly). Why don’t they get angry about the Israeli interference in all areas of UK life, especially our political parties and politics generally, and about Jewish-Zionist abuse of our law?

The Labour slide continues

Labour is looking less like an alternative government even than it did prior to the 2019 General Election. Under Corbyn, Labour still looked, on a rosy view, like it could actually run a government, albeit probably not very competently. Now? I think not.

People compare Labour now to Labour after the 1983 General Election. Again, I think not, though there are points of similarity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)#Internal_conflict_and_opposition_(1979%E2%80%931997)

Labour in late 1983 was only about 4 years out of power, still had its solid Northern English, Scottish, Welsh and other constituencies, still had the then-powerful trade unions behind it. Now? There are few solid constituencies and the unions are all but defunct.

Leadership: Corbyn was not very popular but I seriously doubt that any of the present contenders will do better; maybe Keir Starmer. Maybe.

Paris

Co2T_KXVYAA-yL_

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFzViYkZAz4