Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Council Tax Benefit Going as New Poll Tax Comes in.

with 35 comments

Last night on Channel Four news,

Here’s the good news: local authorities up and down the country are falling over themselves not to put up council tax this year.

Here’s the bad news – if you’re one of the 2.34 million low-income families who used to get council tax benefit, you will be paying on average £149 more in council tax this year than just over a year ago.

In some parts of the country, families once considered too poor to pay council tax face a bill of nearly £300 this year, according to a report by the New Policy Institute for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Last April the government scrapped council tax benefit which helped people on low incomes – either those working for low wages or because they were on benefit.

It was replaced by council tax support and devolved down to local authorities to administer – crucially, though, with a significantly reduced budget.

Initially some councils did try not to impact some of the poorest families. A year on, the figures show more councils than ever have started to insist all working-age adults – pensioners are exempt – must pay something, regardless of their income.

Channel Four illustrate what is fast becoming a new Poll Tax for the poor and unemployed.

No rise in benefits, big rise in council tax,  if not for all parts of the country, at least for scores of councils.

As we have posted before, this means lots of people hauled up before the courts for not paying, more misery and humiliation.

Apparently this is to make us more “responsible” and to end the ‘ something for nothing’ culture.

So we get a big nothing to help.


Written by Andrew Coates

April 2, 2014 at 10:50 am

35 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. This further highlights governments true intent as they cant deny that the poorest are already in arrears over the bedroom tax so this is without doubt a direct assault to try and finish the job of creating a homeless sector. To further cement this fact the government know their just isn’t the single bedroom housing stock around so if not pushing the poorest to homelessness then what?

    The government know councils cant make you deliberately homeless so have shifted the fences through regulation so as to absolve them from their crime while claiming back social housing rather than invest in new housing.

    Economists predicted 2014 would be a trying year


    April 2, 2014 at 11:38 am

  2. It also gives the government the perfect opportunity to relentlessly whine about the cost of LHA and CTA. The cost of all these court cases is enormous. Far higher than any savings they may make from cutting CTA levels. The Daily Fail reading public will love this extra reason to hate us.


    April 2, 2014 at 12:55 pm

    • The whole thing Lucy stinks of a very unpleasant desire to humiliate the poor in general and the unemployed in particular.

      Andrew Coates

      April 2, 2014 at 2:10 pm

  3. Rising food prices. Rising energy prices. The rising price of just about everything. Benefits not rising in line with any measure of inflation. People already affected by the bedroom tax. Councils will be taking more and more people to court for non-payment of a tax that they simply can’t afford to pay, and that will cost money, too. Still, it’s only public money, eh? Just charge the poorest people more next year.


    April 2, 2014 at 1:11 pm

    • Nicely put Lucy and JBS, passing on the costs to other public services is precisely whats happening but the adverse effect as you stated is that these other services cost way, way more to supply.

      Take sanctioning, it directly effects health and or crime prevention ontop of if the person does take the likes of DWP to a solicitor under legal aid or needs criminal representation.

      This is something the government cant deny as if they did would make them what they really are is incompetent to govern. You’ve only got to look at the public borrowing to know this is fact as people don’t by far and large just roll up in a ball and hibernate for however long.

      By allowing increases in patients and criminals is exactly what the conservatives need to justify complete privatisation of both services and their get away if the public don’t wake up to yet more tory slight of hand.

      The attack on legal aid is part of phase 2 (silencing the publics voice) along with trying to get out of Europe so they can ditch the human rights act and completely reduce the rights of the UK public and not because the weak excuse of terrorism and immigration their hoping the public will suck up on.

      The problem is that’s alright for them as its going to corporate business who they serve instead of all this bull about serving all UK citizens like they should in a democracy just proving we live under a dictatorship.


      April 2, 2014 at 3:53 pm

      • Don’t forget that many councils now raise their council taxes by using private companies to bill and cash the money. It’s a nice earner all round for private ‘enterprise’.

        Andrew Coates

        April 3, 2014 at 11:45 am

      • “…along with trying to get out of Europe so they can ditch the human rights act”

        Human Rights obligations are a requirement for membership of the Council of Europe not the EU. Hence Russia, Turkey and Azerbaijan to name but 3 are also signed up to European Human Rights legislation. It is unthinkable that we would leave the Council of Europe – we’ve been a member since 5 May 1949.


        April 9, 2014 at 9:48 pm

  4. Now im going to include this as if your already homeless it matters greatly.

    The government has critised the BBC over how it handles the subject of our climate.


    Basically they are trying to prevent people who don’t hold degrees or have decades of experience in the matter from getting airtime. They claim the BBC aren’t giving scientists equal gravity yet with the same breath are looking to take away that gravity from those that depose their claim.

    Im by trade an engineer (not in climate science directly) but am as a course of my work when doing it responsible for emissions given out by people/companies before allowing their equipment to be put into service so when it comes to testing emissions I am extremely well versed in its science and practice. This said I did lack climate knowledge but have spent many years now (not through university) studying the science and at these peers level to so I do understand what their saying without fault. This action by government would prevent people such as me voicing doubt with merit in certain research which last time damned them from getting .

    Im a complete nut about all subjects regarding energy whether its during the course of my work or free time and can say quite clearly nothing, I repeat nothing happens first without energy so understand melting ice, tornadoes, hurricanes, thunder and lightening, streams and so forth. I even go further than most climate scientists as I also understand the sun and moons activity on the earth, the earths fields and more.

    Todate these climate scientists people might be able to explain our weather be it human made or not but have failed as yet to explain the up surge in the suns activity, more meteor showers entering earths atmosphere, increased volcano and earth quakes and both air and sea creatures losing their direction compass and either beach or crashing straight to earth and dying on mass throughout the world.

    I can state with certainty that theirs no way co2 is responsible for what I just mentioned, energy does and the heat produced from co2 levels in our atmosphere cannot command the gravity required to effect such.

    I would imagine if you follow the money honey, your find all these 1200 peer reviewing experts are all funded (grants) by people/companies who have invested interests heavily in green technology and carbon credits as did al gore when he first touted man made climate change. So I bet they never peer reviewed it the way you should as its not enough to just repeat the hypothesis and get the same results, you have to also try and break it to prove it wrong. Also worthy of mention theirs no such thing as a climate expert, the subject is still largely unknown so stick to the science and math they claim is true and not their credentials.

    Lastly if all these governments and people are so concerned about pollution, dwindling fossil fuel then why support hydraulic fracking (not to be confused with ordinary fracking) that todate despite all companies denying it has polluted all water aquifers (where humans get fresh water from) where such has been carried out and the nail in their coffin as it includes both parties have they consistently refused to acknowledge and allow for production of Mr Paul Pantones invention that allows any motor to run on just one tenth of the fuel it usually used and reduce emissions to next to zero I kid you not.

    Check him out as he put out free of charge his design for his invention so anyone can build it and its not expensive to do either. This has been built everywhere including Europe so its fact it does what I or more importantly what he said it did. So you know you can build it and put it on an engine but it is illegal on cars and motor vehicles using the public highway and voids warranty as all parties simply refuse to allow the public to use it despite it posing no risk whats so ever to persons or equipment. Theirs others who have suffered as Mr pantone did to bring to the public products that are inexpensive to produce and are equally as effective in their field so you tell me who really cares beyond their wallets about our planet?


    April 2, 2014 at 1:15 pm

    • This is hardly the place for a discussion on climatology. I suggest you come up with an argument which has not already been comprehensively refuted here:



      April 2, 2014 at 2:46 pm

      • For a start dear anton I have over 30 years in energy science and engineering and like I said nothing moves,warms,expands or anything without energy first full stop, co2 is not energy, its a gas with resistive properties to the secondary effect of energy which one of is heat.

        I loved the link as im afraid if your going to bang on about global warming then its scientists in my field that need consulting and not the climate community as to the predictive reaction of heat and its opposition to the flow of. Unlike the climate scientists it is us in energy and other certain fields who know most about vacuums which is another major factor to how the climate works.

        For start no one in my camp ever said the climate hasn’t changed as only a moron would fail to notice the climate is in constant flux (forever changing). The argument has always been about is it man made or not. My camp doesn’t even disagree with the practice of a cleaner life style but it has appeared like in the case of Mr paul Pantones invention that governments and big business don’t exactly practice what they preach when they cant profit from it by buying the patent and burying it so it doesn’t overall the profit they stand to lose.

        As for point 2 without the sun their is no heat to begin with as what comes from the core is not enough to sustain life so no sun no heat fullstop. The sun has not long since come out of its 11 year spotless cycle (reduced sunspots) and is very active on CME front. Although heat is a secondary effect of energy like energy it dissipates, gets consumed also so lets say we suddenly entered the 11 year cycle again, even though co2 along with methane that actually traps more heat may be present and trap heat, eventually without the suns activity would eventually peater out. Its like if you will turning off a cooker ring, it retains it for a while but eventually
        dissipates without you guest it, energy. The cooker ring gives its heat up to the material that’s conductive or consuming around it like the air and our planet is no different when we factor in space unless you and these experts want to assert that co2 is 100% resistive to the mass of space which the last time I checked is infinitely larger.

        As for the computer models they were infact wrong and IPCC don’t dispute this along with others as they predicted temps to warm yet as you know only to well its been cooler than warmer not that it doesn’t imply their isn’t a heating effect when you start to cover the subjects of pressure and vacuums which is still something little under stood by climate experts but not without good cause may I add as climate is a complicated subject no matter how long one might be at it.

        The Antarctica gains and loses ice year in and year out but its the sum total that matters and it has been diminishing and alarming so.

        “Temp record is unreliable”. Well try explaining that to people on different side of the planet along with heat pockets. The rural, urban answer is a rue so as to localise the argument (ie, smaller test area produces slower results but none the less ive gone from the UK to Scotland that isn’t that far and the weather temp is most certainly different.

        Animals and plants can adapt”,. As history temperature records demonstrate it has infact been warmer with higher co2 levels than now but despite this no mass extinction occurred at that time.

        “Ice age predicted in the 70s”. Ice ages aren’t caused by a lack off sunspots, their caused by very large super volcanos (like the one in yellow stone park) erupting and jettisoning Sulfur dioxide,Hydrogen Fluoride and Hydrogen Chloride into the atmosphere, thus blocking the sun amongst other deadly effects. This causes mass extinction first and if any species was lucky enough to survive it, the instant preceding ice age would have finished them off.

        “Hockey stick is broken”. Well the did hide the period I already mentioned and as to the answer it depends on what your asking as if its the highest temp then no todays is not but if your asking rate of rise then now has that record.

        “Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy” When its vetted by its own community how did you expect them to find it along with if man isn’t responsible then look at how much revenue would be lost to those that invested in green technology companies and carbon credits. This doesn’t mean I support the sceptics version but I must say in places the terminology used isn’t something I have heard before in the science community.

        “Hurricanes aren’t linked to global warming”. Even though I to cannot say with certainty im reasonable sure climate does effect even hurricanes so no argument their.

        “It’s freaking cold!”. The answer refers to a single day when we know its months of cold weather or lower temps.

        “Mars is warming”. Any planet in our system that warms is as a result of its own climate or fields inrelation to the suns CME, nothing more or less and like I said, no sun no heat on any planet period.

        “Oceans are cooling”. If the air warms it only stands to reason as I explained earlier that it will lend itself to the surrounding material, even water.

        “Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas”. The argument is mute as more heat, more water vapour.

        “Polar bear numbers are increasing”. When we talk of extinction we must acknowledge that theirs species extinction and mass extinction which are 2 different things with different causes like the Tasmanian devil for example whos current threat is cancer.

        “CO2 limits will harm the economy”. It wont harm the economy as all will pass the cost onto the public as usual.

        “CO2 is not a pollutant”. That all depends on the concentration levels.

        “CO2 is plant food”. The answer given is wrong as plants are highly adaptive to gas and can adapt in very fast times. Whether they would however is unclear.

        “It’s aerosols”. I like this one as its a prime example of when science was in its conception totally wrong and ended up causing great damage.

        “It’s not us”. as yet I and my camp don’t see enough evidence to cement this as fact although we do certainly contribute without any wears to its cleaning of.

        “Scientists can’t even predict weather”. Although they cant one cannot go without the other but the answer given is still correct as one is short term and the other long.

        “2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory”. The answer given is quite correct if a little short on explanation.

        “CO2 limits will hurt the poor”. Will hurt everyones pocket, just that of those with less will feel it the most.

        “The science isn’t settled”. The science is settled. This is a political and public unknowing term mentioned by governments and the public and has no basis in science period.

        “It’s the ocean”. The ocean contains some 3/4 of the planets entire co2 and just as it takes it in to store it can give it up just as easily although I have yet to see good data to support the argument that it is.

        “Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans”. When we talk about our records on eruptions or activity up until now it doesn’t include super volcanos or increased sustained activity so the juries out on that one not to mention its the least of our worries if any 2 of that mentioned occurred.
        Like I said in the previous post, co2 cant explain the increase in many aspects the current trend of volcano and earth quake activity so what are we saying, its just coincidence or is it that something beyond us to control is responsible ?

        “It’s methane”. While we as humans keep up the continuing growth on live stock its a serious effect to our climate and does contribute to green house gases and is far more heat reflective than co2 by a lot. This said currently despite including us and every other species on the planet its levels are as yet no cause for concern but be clear it also like co2 needs addressing as theirs no point doing half a job.

        Ok I reckon ive hit enough points on this site to demonstrate I did look and took the time to give an honest answer. Sadly what ever the reason not all the answers given by the site were not quite correct or strayed from the question but their again some of the questions were simply ridiculous to ask or assert in the first place so much respect to the site for taking the time to address them (Dr. Jan Dash).

        Please bare in mind regarding me, just because I don’t support a certain hypothesis or certain measurement tactics or test criteria doesn’t imply im mudding a scientists reputation, I have the upmost respect for scientists and the science and its our duty to question one another as it aids to further perfect the science involved which is all I care about as then we can truly say whats what, its just a shame its not right now.

        Note this though, no where on this site you supplyed does it cover a single point I made in my original post so as you can see im not some lung no nothing sceptic whos visited a few sites and considers themselves a climate expert as like I said their no such thing currently.


        April 2, 2014 at 7:29 pm

    • “I have over 30 years in energy science and engineering ”

      Well I have over 40 years in mathematics and physics (I think I win that one). 🙂 Judging from what you’ve written it seems that you’re confusing thermal conduction with radiative transfer.

      The sun radiates with its peek in the visible, that is absorbed by the earth which re-radiates with a peek in the infra-red. CO2 is partially opaque in the infra-red – it absorbs and re-radiates in a random direction some of which will be back towards the earth. The elevated temperature increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Water vapour is also opaque in the infra-red amplifying the effect. This has everything to do with radiative transfer and nothing to do with conduction. If you don’t understand the radiative transfer – pressure the broadening and Doppler broadening of spectral lines; lapse rate effects and Rayleigh scattering then how can you claim to be ‘studying the science and at these peers level’ – this is basic stuff for anyone studying atmospheric physics.


      You’re supposed to click on the argument to get it in great detail.


      April 3, 2014 at 1:32 am

      • Thanks anton but radiative transfer be it the planet or the sun needs to be doing something first so we still don’t escape the need for moving charged particles prior to.

        Rather than chat over what has already been said in countless papers (not news) why not aid me in what I stated in my first post that kicked off our meeting in the first place as like I said, the link you gave me offered absolutely no response to any of my questions?


        April 3, 2014 at 9:18 am

    • What evidence leads you to the conclusion that there has been a surge in solar activity? Looking at the TSI, each solar peak has been lower than the previous for the last 3 cycles.

      Given that SOHO was not launched until late 1995 how have you reached any conclusions about the rate of CME before cycle 23?

      What is your evidence for more meteor showers entering earths atmosphere?

      Looking at the Large Magnitude Explosive Volcanic Eruptions database, I can’t spot any increase in frequency.

      The US geological estimates that several million earthquakes occur in the world each year. The majority go undetected because they hit remote areas or have very small magnitudes. The National Earthquake Information Center now locates about 50 earthquakes each day, or about 20,000 a year. As more and more seismographs are installed in the world, more earthquakes can be and have been located. However, the number of large earthquakes (magnitude 6.0 and greater) has stayed relatively constant. They are of the opinion that the number of earthquakes have remained roughly constant and that any ‘increase’ has been due to the tremendous increase in the number of seismograph stations in the world and the many improvements in global communications.

      Regarding Paul Pantone, it seems he was charged with 2 counts of securities fraud, to which he pleaded guilty. He was also held for some time in the state mental hospital suffering from ‘grandiose and persecutory delusions, complicated by a personality disorder and a history of substance abuse’. His unpublished autobiography attributes the invention to a ‘celestially connected woman’ possibly an angel. In essence it is a perpetual motion machine (or could be turned into one), violating the conservation of energy. It seems to have had the same degree of success as other perpetual motion machines, in other words it’s only be able to extract money from gullible investors.


      April 7, 2014 at 8:49 pm

  5. ‘The [Localism] Act has delivered power, certainty and consistency to all but low-income households. Limiting increases in the overall levels of council tax gives local authorities a greater incentive to cut CTS entitlement instead as a way to increase revenue. Based on the changes between 2013/14 and 2014/15 the overwhelming trend is to cut support further. So not only do low-income families have to navigate an inconsistent system (one where council tax liability varies by area and individual circumstance) but also one where that support could be further cut year on year.’



    April 2, 2014 at 3:19 pm



    April 3, 2014 at 8:24 am

  7. The local paper has reported a lot of theft/fraud/shoplifting incidents recently. These are typically from last year due to timescales of them going to court. What is clear, the justice system has been very lenient with sentencing (more so than usual). Is this a growing trend?

    Universal Jobmatch

    April 3, 2014 at 9:27 am

  8. A word to the wise is sufficient:



    April 3, 2014 at 2:52 pm

  9. The rise in council tax rise for poorest workers does effect pensioners, because the working poor include women not paid their state pension for 6 years that began in 2013 for 30,000 women and in 2014 for half a million women. From 2016, a great many women will be left with no state pension forever. See if you lose most or all of your state pension:

    You can get your state pension payout without leaving your job or gaining a new job after retirement. The Bedroom tax is still payable if one partner is below retirement age.

    The Swans New Party

    April 3, 2014 at 10:52 pm

  10. Is the following example the most ludicrous benefit sanction ever imposed?:

    “A security guard at a jobcentre turned away a man with learning disabilities who had arrived 20 minutes early to sign on. The man then returned two minutes late to sign on and had his JSA sanctioned for 4 weeks”.

    From a speech by Michael Meacher:



    April 4, 2014 at 8:21 am

  11. Ingeus:

    PLEASE take someone from our useless Work Programme.

    Here we go then – a letter sent by Work Programme provider Ingeus to a (very) small business. Looks like Ingeus touting for action – trying to get anyone it can find to “employ” young people.

    The letter makes clear, in nice bold numbers, that £2,275 is available to employers “for every unemployed young person they recruit who is currently on the work programme.”


    Obi Wan Kenobi

    April 4, 2014 at 8:44 am

  12. ‘George Osborne is a fucking idiot’

    Richard Godwin: Help to Work is slavery by another name.

    This month, Osborne is due to launch the “Help to Work” scheme. It is the latest update of the workfare programme that forces the unemployed to do “voluntary” work or lose their benefits.

    Under the proposed new Community Work Placements, the jobseekers most lacking in “motivation” could be forced to do up to 30 weeks’ work for up to 30 hours a week. As campaigners such as Boycott Workfare have pointed out, that’s more than twice the maximum spell of community service handed out to people who vandalise bus stops and assault grannies.

    Even the Department of Work and Pensions has its doubts over criminalising the unemployed. Still, it all helps those Treasury stats — everyone on workfare counts as “employed”. You can see why they call Osborne a political genius.


    Obi Wan Kenobi

    April 4, 2014 at 8:57 am

    • It’s interesting to note how the rhetoric is being toned down. It wasn’t so long ago that that slime-bag Osborne was saying that anyyone who remained unemployed when they came off the WP would have work for their benefits for six months. Now it’s people who are most lacking in motivation who could be forced to do six months workfare…Hmm.

      From a JCP advisers perspective, I think this could turn into a bully’s charter. If your adviser thinks you lack motivation, you show them insufficient respect or maybe they just don’t like the fucking look of you – then off you go for six months forced labour, my lad.

      jj joop

      April 4, 2014 at 11:13 am

      • I thought that to as his speech in that respect is without doubt vague. Luckily he cant get away with it from our point of view as we are all use to the phrase of “make work pay” which as we all know in translation equates to, “ensure welfare doesn’t”.

        I would imagine like the phrase lacking skills in regards to skills conditionality that your absolutely correct jj joop.

        I think its high time like definitions in law that the term lacking motivation is clearly beyond doubt defined so theirs no miss understanding as who am I (tongue in cheek) to suggest that our advisors are lying cheating crooks or equally worse poorly and inadequately trained.

        I also believe its high time like in any other business that advisors are reprimanded harshly for such an infraction (ie, such a mistake merits a minor misconduct charge, two becomes gross misconduct and out the door you go) when they get it wrong as if we who aren’t employees can retain DWP operational polices and regulation, then why cant they?

        Im not joking when I say I believe certain people on this site and other like minded sites would without doubt make better DWP employees than some of the current DWP crop unless of course these employees care to admit that their made to do it by higher tier management and beyond stretching from local office to HQ.

        Good post Obi Wan and nice reply jj joop.


        April 4, 2014 at 12:00 pm

  13. Latest:

    Department for Work and Pensions.

    Mandatory Work Activity Provider Guidance – Incorporating Universal Credit (UC) Guidance.

    Updated 3 April 2014.



    Obi Wan Kenobi

    April 4, 2014 at 9:18 am

  14. so how much is it going to cost for each placement then?

    super ted

    April 4, 2014 at 12:21 pm

  15. Ive just had an idea and it sits quite clearly in the definition of “actively seeking work”.

    Why don’t we the unemployed set up our own jobsite but instead of allowing recruitment agencies to just post vacancies and thus reducing any chance for bogus scam advertised vacancies, we ourselves approach companies in our respective areas (covers the angle of prospect hunting, hidden jobs or ones about to be created) inorder to attempt to get the local market to consider hiring those suffering long term unemployment or restrictions to work dew to ill health and or disability. At the very least if unsuccessful would without doubt highlight the picking practices of employers and confirming if at all true whether or not the forementioned unemployed are ostracized against (not judging employers) on the basis of longevity of unemployment, ill health or disability.
    It could also be dew to financial constraints in which case instead of providing welfare funds to the practice of providers could infact go towards creating greater tax reduction incentives for employers or added funding perhaps who take on any of the three unemployed brackets mentioned while paying wages indicative to the position offered.

    We all know theirs a public debt so why not make the funds productive rather than pour it down the drain on practices that simply don’t work nor benefit the country?

    This isn’t all I have to say on its workability as over time their wouldnt be any unemployed needed to approach the local market once its an excepted practice and infact itself could be funded by welfare making the effort gainful employment (paid) but none the less i would greatly appreciate any input others might have as every mind helps and their are some beautiful minds frequenting this site and other like minded ones.

    Just think, its possible that we ourselves could be the pioneers of true welfare reform in respect to unemployment where so many todate have failed.

    Please note when I say “any input”, its not enough to make the idea work better, we need to pick out its faults also as these will lead to greater improvements over simply polishing the knobs as so to speak.


    April 4, 2014 at 12:48 pm

  16. My Partner And I fairly recently installed a steam shower unit, finest item I
    have decided to buy in a while, children and family members think it’s great,
    simply cannot see everyone heading back to normal showers anymore


    August 5, 2014 at 9:54 am

  17. Melt Flow Index Tester

    Council Tax Benefit Going as New Poll Tax Comes in. | Ipswich Unemployed Action.

    Melt Flow Index Tester

    August 9, 2014 at 8:11 am

  18. Awesome web site, really been searching forever and a
    day for ideas on the best rattan furniture for our home and in our patio.
    This website seriously helpedgreat blog some great info here

  19. Can Andrew Coates please stop this spam please.

    It looks like this site runs its self as he is never around and only wants to make people happy when he bounces in now and again with images of out of date pop stars??? ( The Saturdays WTF!)


    August 19, 2014 at 10:33 pm

  20. Love all of these steam showers


    August 23, 2014 at 2:55 pm

  21. Come across this fabulous site and purchased a steam shower and
    never ever looked back, quality content on this site can not say thank you enough


    October 3, 2014 at 11:16 am

    • Yeah, Andrew Coates has just purchased a new steam shower. Thank fuck those pre-paid benefit cards aren’t rolled out yet 😀


      October 3, 2014 at 11:20 am

      • I wouldn’t mind a steam shower, what’s the difference between one and an ordinary shower though?

        Andrew Coates

        October 3, 2014 at 11:49 am

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: