Alex Mitchell and Peter Fryer. A tale of two journalists


Come the Revolution, a Memoir
Alex Mitchell
New South Press, 2011
Reviewed by Ed Lewis

Alex Mitchell’s memoir covers a big chunk of history, from the late 1950s up to a few months ago. Mitchell is a skilled and entertaining writer and the book is worthwhile alone for its vignettes of the 1961 Mount Isa strike, the early stages of the Vietnam antiwar movement in Australia and London, the Canberra press gallery, Rupert Murdoch as a rising young mogul challenging entrenched media interests in Australia, Mitchell’s training in tabloid journalism on Murdoch’s afternoon Sydney daily, The Mirror, his later experience in investigative reporting with the Insight team on London’s Sunday Times, his traumatic few days as a reporter in Biafra, his reporting from Idi Amin’s Uganda, in Ireland during “the troubles” and much more.

But Mitchell makes it clear the passion of his life was left politics, and the high point of his involvement in the left was his time in Gerry Healy’s Workers Revolutionary Party, for a few years probably the most successful Trotskyist organisation in Britain, with a daily newspaper, an extensive publishing program, numerous real estate assets, an active membership of probably several hundred and a constellation of celebrities surrounding it, including Vanessa and Corin Redgrave.

The memoir begins with a prologue describing Mitchell’s quiet exit from the WRP in 1986, after 15 years working for it as a journalist and member of the central leadership:

“It was an exit planned with military precision. I parked the car in a suburban street in south London and locked it. I took the keys and placed them in a large brown envelope which I had addressed and stamped in advance. I had deliberately parked near a Royal Mail postbox, and I now dropped the envelope through the flap.”

He was about to catch a plane for Australia, slipping away from the wreckage of the WRP, which had blown apart in 1985 and was in the process of fragmenting further. His long-time mentor Healy appeared to regard him as a traitor, and would no longer talk to him, and most factions of the WRP regarded him with suspicion as a long-time close collaborator of Healy, or central member of Healy’s personal clique as some described him. There were no fond goodbyes to his comrades of 15 years, Mitchell obviously felt a need for secrecy, and he had good reason to.

In 1959, 27 years earlier, Peter Fryer, another talented Marxist journalist, had done something similar. In an open letter published in late 1959 he describes his exit from the same Gerry Healy’s Socialist Labour League, precursor of the WRP. As editor of two publications, he found himself no longer able to work with Healy, and had offered his resignation, which had been refused. He wrote:

“We who came into the Trotskyist movement from the Communist Party, hard on the heels of the experience of Hungary and our struggle with the Stalinist bureaucracy in Britain, were assured that in the Trotskyist movement we would find a genuine communist movement, where democracy flourished, where dissenters were encouraged to express their dissent, and where relationships between comrades were in all respects better, more brotherly and more human than in the party we had come from. Instead we have found at the top of the Trotskyist movement, despite the sacrifices and hard work of the rank and file, a repetition of Communist Party methods of work, methods of leadership, and methods of dealing with persons who are not prepared to kotow to the superior wisdom of the ‘strong man’.”

Fryer added:

“We fully recognized that we, as ex-Stalinists, had much to learn from our new comrades. But we also felt — and we said so openly — that we had something to teach them as well. We were willing to learn. They, it appears, were not.

“They were not willing to slough off the ingrained sectarian suspicion of other people’s motives, the cynicism towards other comrades and other socialists, which has been and remains the biggest single obstacle to the healthy growth and development of the Trotskyist movement in Britain. They were not willing to allow working-class democracy to flourish inside the organization, but insisted on retaining, even during the brief period of rapid growth, a regime whereby effective authority lay in the hands of one man, to whom his colleagues and co-workers were not comrades to be consulted and discussed with but instruments to be used quite ruthlessly. The outstanding feature of the present regime in the Socialist Labour League is that it is the rule of a clique — the general secretary’s personal clique.”

Even in his experience in the Stalinist CP, Fryer apparently had seen nothing like Healy:

“I saw the general secretary take off his coat and fling it to the ground in fits of rage that invariably hindered any constructive solution of a particular problem and so did harm to the movement. I used to ask myself what I was doing to be caught up in such a situation.”

His resignation rejected, Fryer went into hiding, including a few months at the home of a friend, Ken Coates, to get away from the SLL. But even that was not the end for Healy. He launched a search for Fryer, even harassing his relatives, including his mother in Yorkshire. Fryer wrote:

“The denial of democracy to members of the organization is summed up by the general secretary himself in two phrases he has employed recently: ‘I am the party’ and — in answer to the question ‘How do you see socialism?’ — ‘I don’t care what happens after we take power. All I am interested in is the movement.’ Politically this is revisionism, all too clearly reminiscent of Bernstein’s ‘the movement is everything the goal nothing’. Philosophically it is solipsism: if the movement is everything and ‘I am the movement’, then ‘the world is my world’ — and ‘I’ inhabit a fantasy world less and less connected with the real world. It is just such a fantasy world that the general secretary inhabits, in which ‘we’ can ‘watch ports’ (to stop me leaving the country!) and be ‘absolutely ruthless’ to the point of carrying out ‘killings’ (as the general secretary declared to PMcG) — when ‘we’ have in cold fact fewer than 400 members.”

Fryer eventually left England for some years to live in Portugal, out of Healy’s reach. Mitchell made his way to Australia, but that didn’t stop Healy speculating that his former editor had been “lifted” by MI5, apparently implying that he had been a police agent. By then Healy had no organisation to command and was powerless, so Mitchell’s family was safe from harassment. Nevertheless, Mitchell’s cautious method of departure seems well justified.

Fryer made his observations about nine years before Mitchell, in 1968, began attending Healy’s Friday evening London discussion group, whose audience included Corin Regrave, film industry professionals and others of the radical middle class. Mitchell notes that Healy always took a collection, and no doubt part of the function of the meetings was to raise funds.

Bob Pitt, one of many people whose lives were affected by the WRP and its collapse, wrote a book, The Rise and Fall of Gerry Healy, in which he notes:

“At its most cynical level, Healy’s turn to the radical middle classes was motivated by the straightforward pursuit of cash. According to one perhaps apocryphal story, Healy’s response to the recruitment of C. Redgrave was ‘It’s the big one I’m interested in, the one with the money’ – namely Corin’s wealthy sister. Another probable motive on Healy’s part was that such recruits, who had no real background in the workers’ movement and were won to the SLL mainly on the basis of admiration for Healy the individual, were a useful source of uncritical political support. This would seem to be the only explanation for the immediate elevation to leadership positions of the Redgraves – and others such as Alex Mitchell, a former Sunday Times journalist who became editor of Workers Press in 1971. The consequence was to encourage in these people a combination of arrogance and ignorance which destroyed any potential they had as revolutionaries.” (p 77)

That certainly can’t be ruled out in Mitchell’s case, as his description of Healy’s Friday lectures and routing of opponents in debate is nothing short of adulatory, he seems to have remained extraordinarily tolerant of Healy’s blatant bullying and temper tantrums throughout 15 years as his close collaborator, and he still defends actions of Healy that have been widely discredited in most of the left for many years. A problem for Mitchell in this effort is that a great deal has been written about Healy and his methods, and the truth is well established. Mitchell doesn’t have much to add except an insider’s view of Healy’s inner circle.

One of Healy’s campaigns that Mitchell defends is the “Security and the Fourth International” so-called investigation, in which Mitchell, who had a reputation among well-informed WRP-SLL members as a write-to-order man, put his Sunday Mail Insight team skills to work digging up information on Trotsky’s assassination (although it is unlikely that he adhered to the Insight team’s requirement of two independent sources of verification of facts).

In truth, there was little to dig up about Trotsky’s assassination, as the Trotskyist movement had collaborated with investigations at the time, in the 1940s, and much had been written on the subject then and since. Mitchell’s investigation led to accusations against several prominent Trotskyist that they were police agents.

Bob Pitt suggests a material reason for this investigation and the associated accusations: Healy, in his relations with Colonel Qaddafi in Libya, the government of Iraq, and the PLO, “achieved a level of sycophancy towards ‘Third World’ nationalists which outdid anything the derided ‘Pabloites’ of the United Secretariat had ever managed”.

“Under these circumstances, political criticisms of the USec became increasingly difficult to sustain. Instead, Healy launched the ‘Security and the Fourth International’ campaign. This ‘investigation’, which was conducted by Alex Mitchell and American Healyite leader David North, began by charging US Socialist Workers Party veterans Joseph Hansen and George Novack with being ‘accomplices of the GPU’ because of their failure to counter Stalinist penetration of the Fourth International. It went on to denounce Hansen as a GPU-FBI double agent, and ended up by accusing the entire SWP leadership of working for the FBI – on the sole basis that many of them once attended the same college! In 1977 a public meeting was held in London where representatives of virtually every other tendency claiming adherence to Trotskyism condemned this Stalinist-style frame-up.” (p 85)

By the time Healy launched the “Security” campaign, the WRP had been receiving funds from the Libyan and Iraqi regimes and the PLO, as Mitchell confirms. In his prologue, Mitchell says:

“Along the way I took part in official meetings with Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein, PLO chairman Yasser Arafat and Zimbabwe nationalist Joshua Nkomo at which secret solidarity agreement were signed.”

Many left organisations correctly support national liberation movements in the Third World and most of Mitchell’s extensive description of his meetings in the Middle East contain nothing objectionable, but much of the Healy organisation’s interminable ranting against “Pabloite revisionism” was based on rival Trotskyists’ support of Third World liberation movements. One major point of difference was Healy’s denial that a socialist revolution had taken place in Cuba.

In addition, it seems News Line, the WRP newspaper, and Gerry Healy went well beyond solidarity with Third World peoples under attack from imperialism to justifying repressive acts of Middle Eastern regimes. Bob Pitt writes:

News Line notoriously justified the execution of Iraqi Communist Party members by the Ba’athist regime, and even published a glossy brochure extolling the glories of Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein.”

The second issue on which Mitchell fights a lost cause in Healy’s defence is the charges against Healy of sexual abuse that blew apart the WRP in 1985.

Pitt writes:

“Again, there was nothing new in this. Back in the early 1950s, Healy had been in trouble after propositioning a daughter of a prominent figure in the Fourth International. In 1964 an SLL control commission had been held over Healy’s relationship with a leader of the Young Socialists. And one of the background issues to the 1974 split in the WRP was the rejection of Healy’s advances by a woman supporter of Thornett. All of this, however, had been kept from the membership, the majority of whom reacted with shock and outrage after Healy’s corruption was exposed in a letter by his longtime secretary Aileen Jennings.”

Mitchell admits that Healy abused his power for sexual purposes with impressionable young women, but focuses on what he considers a cynical use of the matter by those who attacked Healy, particularly the group led by the Banda brothers, and suggests that police agents were behind the whole affair.

The fact is, Healy had been abusing his power for many years, abusing and bullying people, as Fryer’s letter establishes. Some of the people who had been bullied revolted against Healy while his health was poor after a heart attack, at a time when they no doubt estimated their revolt had most chance of success. They expected to take over the organisation, but the WRP was built on such poor political foundations that it blew apart without the charismatic bluster of Healy to hold it together.

Healy was not one of a kind as Mitchell and other admirers still try to insist. He was one of a type: a clever but politically ill-equipped and rather intolerant young man who found a way to build an organisation based on a fairly primitive Marxism and eventually became a dictatorial middle-aged and later old man ruling over cowed and resentful comrades who revolted when they thought they had their best chance of success. Mitchell tries to quibble over how Healy abused his power, but that’s not important, he did abuse it, not just sexually but in many ways, and in doing so sowed the seeds of the WRP’s destruction.

As Fryer pointed out, Healy had built an organisation based on “ingrained sectarian suspicion of other people’s motives, the cynicism towards other comrades and other socialists”, and it eventually blew apart when Healy strained the credulity of even his most loyal followers by insisting the Thatcher assault on the trade unions, and the resulting miners’ strike, was the struggle for power that would lift the WRP to the head of a revolutionary government. Part of this was the purchase of a series of buildings across Britain, initially as youth training centres, but when they failed, Mitchell says Healy told him the buildings would be useful as meeting places for soviets. The solipsism and tendency towards fantasy that Fryer had detected in 1959 was rather far advanced by 1985.

Healy’s type will be recognisable to many people who went through one or other of the many Trotskyist organisations around the same time as Mitchell. In the end, Healy and the WRP weren’t extraordinary, but very ordinary. Organisations similar to the WRP largely, although not entirely, wasted the energies of the people who joined them.

Others have examined flaws in Trotskyist views of organisation that might have contributed to this pattern, and some have concluded that the methods adopted by Healy and others flowed not from Lenin’s practice, as they claimed, but from Zinoviev’s later efforts to codify Leninism for the parties of the Third International.

For more on this last point see:

Lenin in context, Louis Proyect
Reclaim Lenin from “Leninists” and “Leninism”, Bob Gould
Return to materialism, Peter Camejo
Leninist assumptions and cult hierarchies, Simon Pirani


Tags: , , , ,

10 Responses to “Alex Mitchell and Peter Fryer. A tale of two journalists”

  1. Charlie Pottins Says:

    Interesting stuff, I worked with Alex Mitchell on News Line, though I was sacked by Healy in 1978. I have not got round to reading his book properly yet, but it is almost like it was written by two authors — one who still sees nothing wrong in Healy, the WRP or the Security and the Fourth International investigation, on which incidentally Alex’s closest collaborator was David North of the Workers League in the United States. Hence Mitchell continues to purvey the line that Healy’s downfall in 1985 was the work of MI5 agents etc. The agency must have gone to extraordinary lengths planting people in the movement as sleepers (no pun intended) years before Mitchell joined, as well as managing to enlist a whole series of leading Young Socialists over the years, just so they could testify later to how Healy behaved.

    Then there is the other author who quite quickly discovered that Healy was mad after finding himself target of the same method as he had sustained against others. Perhaps we could arrange for the old and new Alex Mitchells to meet up and confront each other’s testaments some time?

    Just a few points. I agree with Bob Pitt and others over the way Healy used the “security” obsession to divert people from theoretical issues and his reversion to a cruder version of Pabloism. But on factual history, the development did not begin after the deal with Gaddaffi, as is said, but earlier, when Healy was confronted with criticism from former SLL members Robin Blick and Mark Jenkins who had aligned with Pierre Lambert and argued that the SLL should have continued entrism in the Labour Party. The leadership stomped on any discussion and relied on the naivety of newer members particularly to present this as all a conspiracy supposedly engineered by Cord Meyer of the CIA when he came to London! The ouster of Alan Thornett’s faction was a continuation.

    And of course there was good deal of “agent” spotting (not always without reason) in the treatment of the IMG. So it is a mistake to try and impose a rational pattern on Healy’s degeneration by making events fit.

    Second, I was struck by the way Alex Mitchell shows such a good memory for names, recalling several people who had but a passing acquaintance with the movement, but is oddly forgetful at other times. He mentions reports we had from Lebanon in the 1970s civil war, but not that these were from my colleague Jack Gale, a former Leeds teacher, longstanding comrade, and devoted member of News Line staff. Was this because Jack was, rara avis, a WRP central committee member who criticised and challenged Healy later? (The party held a big funeral and memorial meeting for Jack, Healy paying tribute just as the old Chicago gangsters always sent flowers to those they were glad to see off).

    Lastly, I am glad you bring out the memories of Peter Fryer and his experiences. Peter’s book “The Battle for Socialism” was an early influence on me, but I only got to meet him after the 1985-86 WRP bust-up when Geoff Pilling persuaded him to come and work on Workers Press, and later we republished his “Hungarian Tragedy”. Peter was a great person to work with and to know, an excellent teacher so different from some of the “leaders” with whom we have been saddled, an example by his work as a journalist and writer, and his demeanour as a comrade and human being.

  2. Norman Harding Says:


    I read with great interest your coverage on the history of Healy, Mitchell and the Redgraves. There is a lot of experiences that I personally lived through whilst I worked at the centre in Clapham.

    Before I was transported to London I was very active as a member of the Group then as a member of the SLL, I was active in the Trade Union Movement, CND and Tenants and Residents Associations.

    All this is recorded in my book “Staying Red Why I Remained A Socialist

    You will be able to read my life’s activity as a Communist (not Stalinist) and an account of the activities of Healy and his supporters. My book can be ordered from Index Books.


    Norman Harding

  3. Steve Drury Says:

    Yes indeed, anyone trying to understand the events in the WRP in the period when Mitchell was Healy’s close associate, especially the events of 1985, would do well to read Norman Harding’s book. Accuracy and honesty leap from its pages. For comrades in Australia, it may not be easy to get hold of, in which case try Staying Red. For those in the UK — buy it! It is available from Index Books.

    Comradely regards
    Steve Drury

  4. Ed Lewis Says:

    I was unable to attend Alex Mitchell’s book signing at Gould’s Book Arcade, as it occurred during my shift at work.

    I’m told about 40 people attended the book signing. They were mostly leftists, and it was a respectable crowd.

    Nick Beams, now of the Socialist Equality Party/World Socialist Web Site, and an old associate of Mitchell, interjected during the speech and later asked a question about “Security and the Fourth International”, which Mitchell brushed aside. World Socialist Web Site has not reviewed Mitchell’s book, although it carries quite a lot of book reviews. It has, however, in the past few days rerun some material from the “Security and the Fourth International” fit-up.

    Mitchell was good-humoured and when the review above was mentioned said people could write whatever they liked, this was his memoir. He said he originally wrote the memoir not for publication but to explain his long absence from Australia to his friends and family.

    It’s good that he, Norman Harding and others have written their reminiscences and drawn some conclusions about their time in the WRP and other socialist organisations, as such experience should be subject to analysis to draw conclusions. Experience unanalysed and not passed on is largely wasted from the point of view of others who come later.

    Tim Wohlforth, a US Trotskyist, also wrote a valuable memoir of his encounters with Gerry Healy, and his experiences in left politics, The Prophet’s Children, and a book in collaboration with Dennis Tourish, a former member of the Militant Tendency, On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left.

    Ozleft has two items that might be of interest in this connection: Tim Wohlforth’s assessment of the US Trotskyist leader James P Cannon, who was involved in installing Healy at the head of the British Trotskyist movement at a time when it was small and fragmented. Healy reacted badly to Wohlforth’s book and tried to suppress it.

    Also on Ozleft is Guy Williams’s account of the US Trotskyist youth movement in the 1950s.

    I noticed elsewhere on the web some discussion of my review on a small Trotskyist e-list. Some in this discussion appear to be afraid of examining the experience of the socialist movement, and try to dismiss Peter Fryer as an intellectual who didn’t want to do the “dirty work”. That’s not my understanding of Fryer and his work, and it looks like a dodge to try to avoid awkward questions, or to discourage others from asking such questions.

    Someone in that discussion also questions my credentials to comment on Mitchell’s review and similar matters. To that I simply say that I also had experience in the Trotskyist movement, although not in one of the Healy-aligned groups. I know, and have discussed with, people who were in the Australian SLL and the British WRP and am interested in similarities and differences of experience. For several years I worked closely with Bob Gould on literary projects, including this blog. Bob was a former Australian SLL member who had met Healy, respected some aspects of his work, and had attended WRP schools.

    No, I’m not an academic, as my critic suggests in what seems to be an anti-intellectual reflex, but I am interested in history and I make no apology for that.

    The approach of some on this Trotskyist Current e-list, apparently discouraging others from examining past experience, runs the risk of repeating old errors. It’s fortunate that some, such as Alex Mitchell, Norman Harding and Tim Wohlforth, have the courage to face the difficult task of putting their experiences on paper and drawing some conclusions.

    • Norman Harding Says:

      Dear Cde Ed Lewis

      I thank you for the report of the Mitchell book signeing.

      I Think that the main importance of the Mitchell book is the cover-up of Healy’s destruction of comrades who joined the SLL, WRP, and the Young Socialist comrades in all the countries he was connected with, as he must have been whilst in Australia, the UK and the short time he was in the USA.

      He will claim that he was not around to to witness the pre-60s but he was a very respected investigative journalist. He must have forgotten to investigate Healy before he joined him. The damage he did in the Australian SLL was there ready for him to investigate.

      Yet on arrival in the UK and and after enhancing his reputation, he finally joined the WRP. This period has been well covered by many comrades. Then he had a choice to come clean on what he knew of the corruption of Healy and his supporters, including himself.

      In 1985 he vanished and returned to Clapham without any explanation for his absence, not a word to his comrades on the editorial board. He can never be forgiven for his cover-up of Healy’s abuse of the YS comrades.

      What is worse was his political opinion towards those who stood up to Healy and exposed his anti-communist activities. This ended any pretension he may make to being a supporter of the working class. In reality, if he was letting Fleet Street and the newspaper moguls in Australia know that he was a journalist ready for their employment.

      I also would like to make it clear that Healy had a policy of bringing comrades to the centre where he put good jounalists into a straitjacket where their skills were not allowed to develop. Members were recruited to the board, inviduals that had great ability in writing specialist contributions to the paper.

      I know of those who could have written on astronomy, zooalogy, law. Also our media members were not allowed their skills into the working class. Healy had them down as donation of cash and paper sellers and some cases full-time organisers. This was an attack on their ability to do good work in and with the working class.

      My experience was after 15 years of working with the working class in Yorkshire I was lifted out of that area of work into the confines of London and the print shop.

      I am sure that there are those in Australia who joined to fight for communism. It is our task to expose the anti-communist actions of these leaders, to warn the youth who will be the backbone of the fight for our and their future.

      We appeal for comrades to write about their experiences.


      Norman Harding

  5. Ed Lewis Says:

    Leninist assumptions and cult hierarchies

    Simon Pirani, a former WRP member, gave an interesting talk on these subjects to a meeting of leftists in Britain in September (link above).

  6. Norman Harding Says:


    I notice that on your Come the Revolution site you have a photograph of members of the editorial board at the founding of the “News Line”. Did you realise that on your right was a Moscow-trained agent.

    I was on hand when Roy Bull was brought in to see Healy at the centre. After he left I went in the office to tell Healy of my suspicions regarding Roy Bull, and passed on these suspicions to you. My thoughts on matter can be read on pages 75-76 of “Staying Red” (2005).

    Not long after publication I was told that I was correct in what I had written about Roy Bull. He had informed a comrade that it was true he was a Moscow agent.

    Did you as a specialised journalist, after I had told of what I knew of him have any doubts about him?

    Many are waiting for your reaction.

    The moving finger shall write and having written move on.

    Fraternally Norman Harding

    This was sent Alex M’s Come the Revolution website and rejected.

    Norman Harding

  7. Ed Lewis Says:

    Peter Craven reviews Alex Mitchell’s book in the Review section of today’s Australian. Of course, The Australian is paywalled these days, so you’ll have to pay if you want to read it.

    It’s probably best to save your money. Craven pays tribute to Mitchell’s skill as a journalist, but seems genuinely puzzled that anyone could give up a promising career for a political commitment to the left, and he thinks Alex Mitchell was a member of something called the WPR.

  8. Harry McKenzie Says:

    I’ve come in a bit late here, but after seeing it in the Age I’ve been reading the book and it’s a fascinating insight into the radical politics of the 1970s and 1980s, but there are some minor errors and a lot of omissions and not that much reflection. For example Mitchell claims the Communist Party of Australia supported the USSR’s actions in 1968 and that it was only a few branches that opposed the invasion of Czechosovakia when in fact the opposite was true- the Party opposed the action and some branches supported it, leading them to split off in the 1970s. A minor point, but it made me wonder if all his other assertions about politcal rivals and those he differed with at the time were also accurate.

    Similarly the WRP and SLL had a reputation for thugishness and violent action against opponents, but this isn’t really addressed in the book. I wasn’t around then and don’t know exactly the extent to which violence was employed, but Dave Douglass talks in his memoirs about SLL members roughing people up in Newcastle in the 1960s and a friend was beaten up in Brixton in the 1980s by WRP members who were supporting Lambeth mayor Ted Knight against local squatters. Perhaps Mitchell’s position in the party meant he wasn’t aware of such activities, but given the party’s rough treatment of opponents and “defectors” who opposed their line during Healy’s time perhaps it wasn’t so surprising that the party imploded in the way it did.

    Lastly, the lack of reflection and insight into things such as why the party aligned itself with Gaddafi and Hussein (misguided anti-imperialism, money?) and what Mitchell made of their downfall along with other questions about Healy’s legacy, the nature of authoritarian partys, etc make the book feel somewhat shallow.

  9. Ed Lewis Says:

    Simon Pirani, a former WRP member and Newsline journalist, has responded to a review by Laurie Oakes of Come the Revolution, published in the Media Alliance’s Walkley magazine.

    He takes up the patently false comment by Oakes that Gerry Healy was framed on sexual abuse charges.

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: