01

02

03

04

迎

新

是妄想 趁現在追趕失散方向曾懷著心底的信仰　千次萬次跌傷開始不敢回頭尋覓那真相　明日那個幻想也開始不甘被雕刻成石像

人生夢一場革命至蒼老　難得夢一場革命不老

-ASO14 BE LIVE-

05

Dear Freshmen:

感謝您們。籌備整個ASO14，天天日以繼夜夜以繼日，見不了家人約不到朋友，是辛酸的勞累的。是您們給了我最大的衝勁。我很期待看見您們的面孔；很期待您們感受到我們所準備的一切；很期待您們會喜歡這個地方；很期待ASO14結束後，甚至幾年後，我們相遇時您們也會叫一聲：「主席！」回想起來，為一班素未謀面的您們花心神締造五天的驚喜、凝造五天的感覺，其實也挻浪漫的。記著您們每一個面孔每一個名字，為您們摺玫瑰花，趁您們矇著眼為您們撥扇.....

感謝您們。感謝您們都把自己的心掏出來了，好能去感受ASO14的一切。主題的意義，每一個program，每一次的shar-ing，這裡的人，人與人之間，組爸媽組仔囡，一齊一齊都是靠我們都真摯地開放自己、把心掏出來。希望您們也記得這一切的感覺，明年，有機會的話，把這一切再帶給下一年的freshmen，一齊做組爸媽過ASO15好嗎？

五天的時間我也只能夠遠遠觀察您們，又或是從您們的組爸媽得悉組內情況，沒甚麼機會好好認識您們每一位。我很想更加深入認識您們，主席背後其實也只是個和藹可親的同學而己（馬騮掩眼）。平時係學校見到我記得同我打招呼啦我仲記得你地d名ga，約下我做visit都得！ :b

Dear OC:

感謝您們與我這個cap cap OC主席奮鬥了三個月，容忍了我的非常之唔su，極之唔determined，經常個樣都好似就黎死ge OC Chairman。其實一開始到ASO14完結我對自己作為OC主席都抱不大信心，因為我一直認為自己的性格本來就不適合作領導的角色，但既然當初也決定了便硬著頭皮闖吧，希望經歷過這一切能令自己有所成長。是的，有時候對自己的一份盼望和憧景也能夠成為一股動力，令你更加有力量去挑戰自己。

一起戰鬥了三個月，就像多了班好兄弟，一同為著同一個目標同一個願景奮鬥的感覺真好。這三個月真的經歷了很多，慢慢去認識您們每一個，慢慢發現您們各人的特別。係咁催我快快快好有衝勁的Pearl；成日懶係睇穿我ge Bruce；激動的「都得」郭晉；一望我眼神就知我麻麻張pub ge孫珽；小人國國王Sunny；仲有好得意好得意同埋好得意ge薯仔先生。完了ASO14我已經很掛念那些日子，要數ASO14最大的得著，那該是您們吧！<3 <3 <3

真的真的很感謝您們。雖然我在您們之間應該完全無乜主席形象或霸氣，好易tum又成日畀你地玩畀你地抽水，但亦都成日畀你地錫住。成日提我食野提我訓覺叫我唔好咁chur同我講分多d野畀你地做，有邊一個主席可以好似我咁幸福丫？:*

06

07

Dear Exco:

感謝您們帶給了我一個難忘的ASO14。

ASO14的完結也就是莊期剛剛到一半，現在也剛剛過了莊期二百天了。

有一種關係叫莊友。莊期過了大半，回想起當初上莊的那股傻勁，也的確很傻。但無論怎樣都把傻傻的我們八個聚集了。忙忙忙的工作有時很容易令自己迷失，也有時候會很洩氣。還有百多天，也是還剩下百多天。還有百多天、還有幾個的function，year2大家都開始忙了，繼續加油加油，齊上齊落。還剩下百多天，我們還得好好珍惜。我很希望我們除了是很好的合作伙伴外，更可以成為很親密的戰友。

Dear Coordinators and Helpers:

感謝您們每一位。感謝您們讓freshmen都感受到這個地方的那份溫馨。ASO14不只是給freshmen迎新的，同樣地也是讓current也透過這幾天去感受、去分享、去認識，認識freshmen也同時地認識自己。希望怎們也會喜歡這個地方！:)

－迎新ASO14 BE LIVE 籌委主席 何碧嵐－

08

一段又一段從未有過的經歷，一段又一段彼此重視的關係，就是ASO 14的重要回憶。回想當初，從未想過一個暑假的時間，會換來如此難忘的回憶。作為OC，眼中所見，身體所感受的ASO 固然與Freshmen 有所不同。當初一直不解ASO 一直重視和堅持的價值和目標，但當ASO14 的日漸迫近，ASO 的畫面漸漸清晰，我開始認為這些堅持和價值，便是付令ASO 14 與眾不同的地方。

ASO 14完結後，在校園內碰見Freshmen及其他同學，其實很想很想和他們分享籌備ASO 14的經歷和感受，不管是喜是悲，只想Freshmen 多了解ASO 的背後。無奈地，這些經歷和感受往往難以言喻，三言兩語之間只能略略提及，ASO 的心聲只留在心底了。

ASO 是我理想中的orientation 形式，希望打後的ASO 能夠再為將來的freshmen 製造入大學的第一個美好回憶。

－迎新2014 BE LIVE 籌委常務秘書 甄卓藍－

《

撞 碎 了 冰 山　衝 過 了 急 灣　登 上 完 夢

的 峽 灣

望 到 了　

望 到 了　白 雲 搭 上

一 片 藍 》

09

ASO13嵐途，以 freshman 的身份過 O ，稱不上全程最享受的一個，但仍記得看著大冒山上破曉的情景，也記得與組 mates 因組爸媽毫無原因的關懷和擔憂而觸動，浪漫、感動的場面歷歷在目。這都驅使我相信自己的直覺，相信自己會以 OC 的身份重返 ASO。

準備的過程，挑戰接踵而來。Theme 一改再改，來自各方各面的質疑，整個 O 的每一個部分好像重來沒有什麼是 firm 的。先是為 hall 準備 reg day，到 ASO14 on day 前幾天，身體開始支撐不住，要處理的問題卻越來越多。但越接近 on day，心情卻越來越興奮，整個 O 開始定形，腦海中 ASO14 的景象漸漸清晰。終於，明白到上莊所說的期盼看見 freshmen 的感覺。

Day 1，由 First Gathering 直落到長洲來來回回搬抬托到為準備 night track 通山跑，耗盡體力。

Day 2，由無法看 Dem cheers 的可惜到為 Property Empire 的漏洞趕頭趕命，漸覺麻木。

Day 3，由離營的混亂到決定是否回 campus 過 Be Dazzled 的掙扎，再由聽見 freshmen 一同唱《無盡》感動得流淚，coordinators lukewarm 的回應的失望，過山車一般的心情。

Day 4，由 Performance 時第一次與 freshmen “對話”到看見 alumni 回到這裡繼續啟發下一代，才發現自己這一年成長了多少，內心激動。

Day 5，突然發現 ASO14 已到尾聲。Overall Comment 時看見每個被 ASO14感動的 freshmen，不禁思念一年前的 ASO13，思念一年前的我，思念一年前願意釋放自己內心情感的我。到我 overall comment，發生的事情，不解釋。

終於可以參與最自 high 的老薑 dem cheers，終於可以在 ASO14 完結之時食新興早茶，終於可以讓 fresh-men 看見我們的笑容。感謝各位 coordinators 為我們完成了一個發了數個月的夢，感謝各位 freshmen 讓我再次受 ASO 感動，感謝各位 helpers（特別是 “core helper”）甘願當最低回報的苦力。感謝 Cohae-sio Ex-co 及 BE LIVE OC，一路上的衝突與互不信任，每一個難關，還是靠我們對那共同的夢的堅信不移，才能有讓我們自豪的 ASO14。本來最怕被問起我們的 theme 到底是什麼，也許現在終於找到答案了。

－迎新2014 BE LIVE 籌委活動策劃秘書 杜宏逸－

《

如 果 說

要 我 選 出 代 表 青 春

那 個 畫 面

浮 現 了

那 滴

眼 淚 那 片 藍 天

懷 念 總 是

突

然

懷 念

不 談 條 件

》

10

“長大” 這一詞對我來說很可怕。穿著純白色校服的我，好像只是昨天的事。18年既時光換來既你係一張社會入場卷。很多人會為成為大學生這事而興奮、自豪。但我很害怕。我很害怕我即將要面對社會，面對一個每個人都只會以假面具示人的社會。大學是最後的一個庇護所。

……

四年時限已經過了四分一。自己過了一年的大學生活。住過舍堂，尚算充實。起碼我會記得我呢一年得到d咩。甚麼GPA低對我黎講唔可憐，最可憐既係成年你得到既淨係得GPA。我唔鍾意讀書，我好鍾意人與人之間果種關係。我好鍾意見到大家童言無忌，個心仲係fresh~ 怕咩比人鬧姐，想做就做啦，大學唔同中學，唔會再老師同你講岩定錯，restrict住你，大學既生活係你自己既，一張timetable可能list左好多堂，不過呢d自己就架姐，你鍾意既放自己week off都得架，你覺得值得就得。YOLO啦，對我黎講ASO特別既地方唔係d咩program、咩大道理，而係一種感覺，一種唔知點解會令大家聚首既感覺。自己過果年有左呢種感覺，到今年望住丫妹過又另一番體會。長大好可怕，佢會吞噬你身邊既所有野，但吞噬唔到回憶…

時間只會愈黎愈少，希望所有AS人都可以係呢四年刻畫出不後悔既回憶。BE LIVE

－迎新2014 BE LIVE 出版及宣傳秘書 孫珽－

ASO 13 Freshman ge 我好對oc 同exco印象好深刻唔明點解佢地成日唔知去左邊成日個樣累到就黎死overall comment會喊得咁激動。。。

ASO 14 Exco ge我終於體驗到個種有笑有淚，愛恨交織ge感覺得到ge比想象中多。一輩子的難忘。

ASO 15 會同BE LIVE OC EXCO 過 O ge我充滿期待。不知誰會像我一樣。曾因ASO14感動？對ASO好奇？想搞一個屬於自己ge ASO 15？

－江嘉洳－

11

這一步，困難乃指你如何於公開試過關斬將，才得到手上那學位。

那一步，臻境乃指你覺得學位已是心中所求，將來會是一片光明。要記住，大學不是職業訓練所，更不是你的歸宿。

每走出一步，都會認識不同的人與事物，都能從中學習。

我很相信：經歷使人成長，不論好的壞的。

－Mkfung－

回想剛過去的夏天，其實也不是去過很多地方、參加過很多活動，但我可以肯定地告訴你，這個夏天我一點也沒有白過。

籌備 ASO14 的確用上了不少時間，當中不免會有惆悵、失惜的時候，但更多的，是歡笑的時刻。一伙人一起併傅，抱著同一憧憬，令我嘗到那種青春、熱血的衝勁。

到了on-day，五天的時間真的貶眼就過。組內的關係真的很奇妙，還記得深夜裡促膝而談，分享自己的內心感受，我感受到大家的真誠。這種真摯的感覺就是這麼單純，也許若干年後想起 ASO14，就會再次因這微妙的關係而會心微笑。

最後，感謝大家伴我走過 ASO14。這個夏天，有笑過，有哭過，有徬徨過，而正正是這些一點一滴刻劃出深刻的感受，組成一段又一段獨特的回憶，成為我們的 ASO14。

－Iris－

相信

相信是選擇。你選擇了相信，任何事物都不能動搖你。

相信是態度。你無助的時候，它是讓你撐下去的動力。

相信是盲目。它令你不斷的付出，不斷的沉迷。

相信是信仰。它讓你看得見希望，看得見將來。

－Lincoln－

12

「主席 大會 建築系 一年級 張栢妍」還記得當初顫顫驚驚地開口說出這句話，就這樣開展了一連五天的建築迎新- BE LIVE

ASO 14 為迎新活動下了一個新的定義。或許當時並不明白為甚麼建築的迎新不可以與普遍的迎新營一樣有著瘋癲的遊戲，為甚麼我們每天早上都要在烈日當空下頂著炎熱的太陽進行早聚，為甚麼我們要有 standing order 這一回事, 為甚麼每晚都要night sharing。

本來以為迎新過後，所留下的都會是那些與組員遊戲時的回憶。但五天過去後，回想起來，印象最深的竟然不是在迎新玩了什麼活動，而是可以自我反省的每個晚上。

說真的，中學時期每分每秒都只顧讀書，我的眼中除了考好文憑試外，根本沒有想過生活中其他瑣碎事，更 遑論思考夢想這件事。本來以為考進港大建築系，就已經達成我「夢想」的一半，但原來我當時並不清楚夢想是甚麼。ASO 的 night track 和 night sharing 讓我開始想想夢想這一回事。

夢想　於漆黑裡仍然鏗鏘仍然大聲高唱　仍然期待世界給我鼓掌

或許你不敢說出自己的夢想，怕被別人取笑，怕被別人看低。但如果你心底裡真的想有著這一個夢，就是要好好守著，把心中那團火燃燒出來，不要讓它熄滅，使它在漆黑中發光發亮。

大學一年級，是一個適當時間讓我們尋找人生方向，好好把握這一年去征討每一個領域。

讓我們約定一年後，重踏ASO 這個地方，分享我們的旅途，燃亮別人的生命

－張栢妍－

《

夢 想

於 漆 黑 裡

仍 然 鏗 鏘 大 聲 高 唱

期 待 世 界 給 我 鼓 掌

》

13

ASO14 的主題是BE LIVE

對於freshman 的我而言有兩種意義。

第一是相信。相信自己，我敢於在night track 時摸黑踏上崎嶇不平的道路，敢於踏上未知的大學之路；我敢於在performance後舉手回答同學及師兄姐的質疑和詢問，敢於捍衛自己追求的事和價值。相信朋友，我得到了一群知心好友，我樂於為在台上被 “仙“的他們發聲，我享受在sharing 環節跟他們盡訴心底話，我喜見他們的聆聽和回應。常說大學難交真心好友，和朋友的關係，也許只在乎你相信多少和付出多少而已。

第二是活著。大學短短四年，時光匆匆流逝。常聽聞不少大學生虛度四年光陰，至畢業後才發現自己一無所穫。作為新生，亦難免有此擔憂。在第一晚的night track ，便要為怎樣去活著大學生活而作出抉擇。常害怕在某地倒下了錯誤份量的石沙，更害怕很快就花光了瓶子內有限的沙子。其實，有一個自己就有一個自己的活著。經過ASO14 ，我瞭解到要活著自己的大學生活，最需要的仍然是相信，相信能走出comfort zone ，相信自己。

或許到最後沒有完美句號，仍然倔強冒險一一去征討 — 這也許是ASO 14 帶給我這個freashman 的啟示吧！

-BLUE-

14

ASO14 BE LIVE…知唔知我地想帶到啲咩畀你地？每一個 program 背後有啲咩意義？對 ASO14 有意見？想發表自己嘅睇法？黎緊嘅 ASO14 Post Orientation Forum 就可以讓你慢慢咁再一次理解 ASO14，發表自己對 ASO14 嘅睇法 !

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

I was just wondering what to write when I heard the news that a donor pulled out from HKU because HKU did not “kow-tow” in the past two weeks. I was taken aback by the fact that our society has been degenerated into a simple ideology of "either you are with me or against me "! This is beyond any reasonable comprehension. I need to say that I am proud of you, young people, in what is happening here in Hong Kong. Every generation is somehow disgruntled at their younger generation for some behaviour they don’t concur.

My father used to hate me listening to the songs of Sam Hui ( 許 冠 傑 ), saying that the lyrics are vulgar, which I disagreed. Now I am a disgruntled father myself for my sons spend too much time on their computers and phones (which they disagree), and I am sure they will be unhappy with their children in some way twenty years from now. This is almost like human nature ! The most important thing is NOT to prove that “I am right and you are wrong”, but to let other parties know what you want and why you want it. I think young people in Hong Kong have proved themselves to the world that they can be well-disciplined, organized and tenacious in this whole incident. You have shown restraint in this non-violent pursuit for a better society so far.

The next step is to learn the difference between be ing brave and be ing foolhardy, and to understand that sometimes you need to retreat in order to win. Retreat does not mean surrender if push comes to shove. If situation deteriorates that may jeopardize all the work you have done, then learning to compromise is more important than learning to sacrifice.

Finally, I am dedicating this song “Brave” by Sara Bareilles to all of you, the lyrics match what I see in you in the past two weeks !

DR. L.H. LIAssociate ProfessorDeputy Head of Department

SCOPE

28

I have been asked to express some of my personal thoughts about the stirring events of recent weeks. Rather than rehearsing a stock political viewpoint, I prefer to do as my role as teacher bids: to ask you to think about a familiar issue in a new way.

There are two ways of approaching the question of democracy in Hong Kong, China or in any country and both are necessary. One is an emotional response from the heart and the other an intellectual response from the head. Emotions make us human, especially when partnered by intellect. Without an emotional response to injustice, fewer social wrongs would be righted. Emotion is an intrinsic part of the processes of collective action, since arguments are best expressed with animation. For those, particularly those born and brought up as children of Hong Kong, who tasted the raw emotions on the streets two weeks ago, your view of the complex issues underlying questions of governance will have changed. Subtly or dramatically. Emotions have the knack of shaping, challenging or even reversing even the most well founded logical argument or long-held prejudice because they can trigger a phase-change in perspective. They change the mood music. Those Occupy Central moments will live with many for the rest of their lives.

Democracy: hearts and minds, governance and cities.

My encouragement at this time would be to use the energy positively, to reflect intellectually on democracy. Read about the strengths and weaknesses of ancient Athenian direct democracy and modern equivalents in Switzerland, the tiny Faroe Islands and Brazilian favelas. Read the founding Enlightenment cynics (Alexander Fraser Tytler, 1747-1814), as well as the protagonists (John Locke, 1632-1704 – “legitimate government rests upon the consent of the governed"). Read up on the four major justifications found in modern democracy theory: protective (liberal), participatory (direct), pluralistic (power-politics) and popular (deve lopmenta l ) . Or the common approaches to organising democracy: direct, representative, parliamentary and presidential. Explore the many hybrids.

I recently came across the following, posted by one of my nephews’ young children on her Facebook page. It is a reminder that we don’t all see things through the same lens.

29

How do you govern when not everyone sees everything the same way? How do you remain a strong, stable and tolerant society? How do you make collective decisions about resources that are scarce and inevitably contested? These are the intellectual questions that thinkers like John Locke grappled with at a time when international trade had started to upset the long-held monopolies of power held by the monarchic families governing the continent of Europe. (John Locke, by the way, was a friend and mentor to an ancestor of mine who fled to Holland to escape the displeasure of England’s reigning monarch).

To help you develop your own ideas about these matters, cons ider the following thought experiment.

Consider a simple political economy model. Immediately after the traumas of the first half of the 20th century, it was common to polarize communism and fascism at either ends of a political continuum. A more meaningful spectrum

G=1 G=N

Freedom

Number of governors (or decentralization of rights)

places total government control (N Korea) at one end and total individual control (Somalia ten years ago) at the other. You could think of it as:

[G=1]---------------------------------[G=N]

G= number of governors, N = number of governed. At the left end, just 1 person governs N people. This is an extreme totalitarian state like medieval kingdoms. At the other end, N people govern N people. This is extreme anarchy in which every individual governs her or himself.

Now make this into a 2D graph (below), adding an axis that represents the welfare of the population of N people. Let’s draw from Amartya Sen and define ‘development as freedom’ and put freedom on a vertical axis, where freedom comprises at least three parts (more if you want): political, economic, religious. Political freedom rises with more power to determine one’s leaders; economic freedom rises with personal income and wealth; religious freedom

30

rises with the separation of state and religion and with social and ideological tolerance of others (I add this because of what’s happening in the Middle East at the moment).

As well as representing the number of people in government, the horizontal axis might also represent, more technically, the dispersion of rights in society (over person and property). At the extreme left of the graph, all rights over income, collective decision-making and religious thought and practice remain with a single person. At the extreme right (geometr ical ly) , r ights over these matters are completely distributed to N individuals, who have the right to choose what job they want and where to live; what religion to follow; and what view to hold about how to organize any collective action they might want toengage in (the model ignores the real constraints on people’s ability to earn).

Both extremes of the model arguably yield poor results for society for many and varied reasons, some common to both ends of the spectrum, some specific to one or other. Because this is so, neither end is stable, and there will inevitably be a move towards a middle ground.

Pure anarchy cannot long sur vive. Populations quickly invent rules to make life bearable. Occupy Central was very well organised. Nevertheless, new rules emerged as the number of protesters grew. Good rules, almost by definition, reduce individual rights, but in the end, yield greater individual freedom. Like the child deciding to abide by his parents rulings and finding that life workbetter with certain well-designed

constraints. So from an initially anarchic society, the distribution of individual rights is likely to centralize somewhat, moving to the left.

Autocracy cannot survive long either, especially in modern times with good communications. It is too costly. Empires eventually implode from the edges as well as from the centre. Soviet communism crashed in 1989. Deng Xiaoping opened up the Ch inese economy ten years earlier. The process at work in transitional economies that are moving away from central planning is not dissimilar to that operating in transitional economies moving away from anarchy. It involves decisions about more appropriate (more fair and more efficient) collectivization of rights.One state moves from the right, aggregating more and more indiv idual r ights . The other state moves from the left, disaggregating more and more rights.

On July 1st 2010, the PRC promulgated China’s first modern law of Tort. This had the effect of decentralizing decisions about liability disputes to lawmakers, moving away from central control over individual decisions by creating a framework of unambiguous rules. The same movement towards the right (geometrically and ideologically) has happened in many spheres of Mainland gover nment af fa i r s – land laws, compensation laws, labour laws and so on are decentralizing the power of government. It is a dynamic process and it takes time for a transitional state to move from one end of the model to a more workable and acceptable middle ground.

Sometimes, an expression of political voice (or political exit for a small country) helps a government made bigger steps than it otherwise might; or to make them more quickly (note that post-Soviet reform in the smaller Baltic states was very quick and very thorough, partly, one presumes because of the ease with which footloose people, entrepreneurs and capital could relocate somewhere else nearby).

Back to the diagram. At the left extreme (which includes the fascism of ISIL and similar), freedom suffers severely. I have drawn the graph to suggest that even a move from a single dictator to a small group of cadres, may not be sufficient to create true freedom for the people. I have drawn ‘peak freedom’ (the optimal political model) nearer to the right end than the left end because experience seems to show that generally, (following the ancient Hebrew Psalmist), ‘there is wisdom in many counsellors’ (or following John Locke, decisions are best steered by the people they affect – with adequate safeguards for the greater good, for dispersed demand, and for the poor, the sick and otherwise disempowered). But too great a decentralization of rights risks moving from democracy to anarchy. Some would say that India is too far to the right in this diagram.

If you were to break down the graph into two types of freedom and draw a separate line for economic freedom (indicated perhaps by GDP per capita) and political freedom (indicated by some index of democracy), then you would see that the two lines trade-off at some parts of the graph– as with the case of

Ind ia – and that ‘peak economic freedom’ l ies to the left of ‘peak political freedom’, at least at some stages of economic development. This is Beijing’s argument of course. Then if you threw in time, perhaps as a third dimension, you could conjecture on the likely trajectory of different states over time – towards convergence, or perhaps towards different models of capitalism. A detailed political-economic study of this might also be able to spot where political voice, such as Occupy Central, might be necessary to oil the wheels of institutional evolution. political voice, such as Occupy Central, might be necessary to oil the wheels of institutional evolution.

The emotional impact of Occupy Central is a chance to re-calibrate your thoughts about government, not just in Hong Kong, but more generally. I remember Tianaman Square in 1989 vividly. I was watching events, welled-up with sad emotions in London (my first visits to Mainland China were in 1983 and then 1987). Because of what was at stake and the loss of life, it impacted me much more than the London riots did much later in 2011, for example. I am not sure exactly how, but it influenced my view of political economy and the difficult choices that every country faces in attempting to make progress towards freedom, development and prosperity.

The same dynamics apply wherever scarce resources need to be allocated to competing users: they apply in the family, the workplace and student societies as much as they do in whole countries.

31

They apply in any design problem. Design is one method of allocating scare resources, such as space in a house or infrastructure and land in a city. Judgements have to be made. It is rarely, if ever, possible to design a collective decision-making process (or to design a plan for a building, plot, neighbourhood or whole city)that performs well on all three dimensions of the so-called democratic trilemma (after James Fishkin):participatory, deliberative,political equality. The skilful politician, like the skilful designer or skilful corporate or university manager or skilful parent, is one who makes tricky trade-offs wisely. Whatever your engagement has been with Occupy Central, hopefully, the experience will cause deep reflections about the nature or organised humanity and help make you into someone who is known as a wise decision-maker.

Professor Chris WebsterDean18th October 2014

32