» Monday, March 15, 2004

Madrid Bombings/Spanish Elections/Security Threat

The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister hoped to have a telephone conversation with the Prime Minister-elect of Spain, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, at lunchtime today. Asked what they would discuss, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister would congratulate him on his victory. It was a statement of fact that there were differences of opinion in Europe over the war in Iraq. The Prime Minister had his view, others had theirs. All were entitled to their positions. The important thing to recognise, however, was that we were in a critical period in Iraq. As we had seen last week, the political momentum was beginning to allow for the transfer of sovereignty on 30 June and we were beginning to see the emergence of the new transitional arrangements. It was important for that momentum to be maintained and to continue to make progress on improving and rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure. It was also important for us to continue doing what we could to stabilise the security situation there. This was a time for everyone to redouble their efforts in terms of focussing on ensuring that the transfer to sovereignty was successful and in allowing Iraq to develop into a stable and prosperous democracy – something that it had not been able to do under Saddam. Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister had spoken to former Prime Minister Aznar, the PMOS said not at this stage. The Foreign Secretary, however, had spoken to his former Spanish counterpart, Ana Palacio.

Asked if the Prime Minister was hoping that the Spanish Prime Minister-elect would not pull out Spanish troops from Iraq, the PMOS said that that issue was a matter for the new Spanish Government. He pointed out, however, that Mr Zapatero had said that he would withdraw troops from Iraq if there was no change in the situation by 30 June. We were in Iraq precisely because we wanted to see change on the ground. That was why this was such a crucial period. Asked if the Prime Minister would point that out to Mr Zapatero, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister would point to the progress that was being made. Ultimately, however, it was for the Prime Minister-elect to explain what he had meant.

Asked the Prime Minister’s reaction to the fact that a terrorist act had apparently helped to change the composition of the Spanish Government , the PMOS said that it wasn’t the Prime Minister’s job to act as a political commentator. The Spanish people had made their decision and we respected it. Asked if the Prime Minister believed that there were lessons to be drawn from the events in Spain, the PMOS said that it was important to continue to be wary about rushing to judgment regarding who was responsible for the Madrid bombings. We still did not know for certain at this stage. On a more general point about Al Qaida, the PMOS underlined that this was not a threat which had emerged since the Iraq war. Al Qaida had been operating for the last eleven years, starting with an attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993. It had carried out operations in some sixty countries on five different continents. In the last five years, approximately 4,000 people had died in attacks which had been attributed to Al Qaida or groups associated with Al Qaida. We had seen attacks in Africa, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Morocco. This was clearly not a threat which was aimed at particular countries or even a particular group of countries. It was a threat to our way of life – a threat to democracy and democratic values. We had seen the sort of society which Al Qaida wanted to set up. You only needed to cast your mind back to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. This was obviously not a group which could be negotiated with. That was precisely why the threat was so serious.

Asked if he would agree that there was a link between the war on Iraq and the war on terror, the PMOS said it was important to recognise that the serious threat from Al Qaida wasn’t only directed towards those countries who had supported the war. President Chirac, for example, had allegedly been threatened by the deputy to Osama bin Laden because of France’s policy on the Islamic headscarf. Thus, the threat was aimed simply towards those who disagreed with the fundamentalist viewpoint expressed by Al Qaida. Asked if he was indicating that the threat to Paris was as great as the threat to London, the PMOS said that it was not a matter for him to assess the level of threat in other countries. He was simply relaying what had been reported. Put to him that the only reason why he was breaking his own rules and commenting on another country was because the British Government feared a link between the war in Iraq and terrorism, the PMOS said he thought that this was a very strange Westminster view being put forward. It was not extraordinary to report factually that the level of threat from Al Qaida was widespread. It was very evident that they were not focussing solely on those countries that supported the Iraq war.

Asked if the outgoing Spanish Administration had been punished in the polls for the way they had handled the aftermath of the bombing or whether the attack – widely believed to be by Al Qaida – was the result of Spain’s support for the Iraq war, the PMOS said that he wasn’t a commentator on Spanish politics. The important thing was for people to remain calm, vigilant and realistic in assessing both the latest threat and the threat from Al Qaida. We did not yet know for certain who had carried out the attacks in Madrid. It was therefore important not to rush to judgement on the basis of what, as this stage, were assumptions. Put to him that it was precisely this attitude which had got the Spanish Government into trouble in the first place, the PMOS repeated that it was not his job to act as a commentator on Spanish politics. That said, it was a statement of the factual position that we did not know who was responsible. There were indicators in both directions. However, we were not certain who was to blame at this stage. Put to him that security sources quoted in the papers this morning had suggested that the ‘wind was blowing in one direction’, the PMOS underlined the point that until we knew for certain who was responsible, it would be indulging in speculation to come down on one side of the fence or the other. Asked if he would agree, in the interests of consensus, that the evidence was pointing in one direction only, the PMOS said that it wasn’t his job to indulge in consensus. His role was to deal with the facts as best he could. Asked to explain why he was ‘making a meal out of something that should be a small snack’, the PMOS said that if our security assessment stated that we could not know for certain who was responsible at this point, it was his job to reflect that assessment. Asked if he would agree that the Spanish Government had been ‘indulging in speculation’ to state categorically that ETA was responsible for the attacks in Madrid, the PMOS said that what the outgoing Spanish Government had stated was not a matter for him.

Asked to explain why the Government was being so reluctant to draw any conclusions from the ‘abundance of evidence’ that Al Qaida had been responsible for the attacks and that this had had a direct connection to the ‘downfall’ of the outgoing Spanish Government, the PMOS said that the British Government had had an open mind from the outset as to who was to blame. We were not there on the ground assessing the information. We also recognised from our own bitter experience that it was difficult to gain absolute certainty about certain issues in the period following an attack because of the need to take time to assess the information that was available. We respected the fact that the Spanish authorities had not rushed to judgement. We would not do so either. Of course people were perfectly entitled to engage in speculation. However, it would be irresponsible on our part to say that we knew who was blame when we did not know for certain. Our assessment would be informed by the assessment made by the Spanish authorities.

Asked if the Prime Minister would support Germany’s proposal to hold an EU security summit, the PMOS said that he was not aware of any specific proposal at this point. Were one to be suggested, we would obviously consider the idea very carefully.

Asked if the Government would be discussing the failure of intelligence service to pick up any signs of an impending attack in Spain, the PMOS said that we never commented on intelligence matters.

Questioned about the level of the security threat to the UK, the PMOS said that our assessment today remained the same as our assessment this time last week. We believed the threat to be high. That was why we needed to remain calm and vigilant. We would continue to take whatever measures were necessary to protect the British people as best we could. Asked repeatedly if the Prime Minister honestly believed that the UK’s participation in the war in Iraq had made no difference at all to the nature or the level of the threat facing Britain, the PMOS said the Prime Minister had expressed the view in speeches and in interviews that this was not a threat which we could duck or from which we could hide. The PMOS drew journalists’ attention to the pattern of threat that was traceable before the war last year. He reminded them, for example, that the series of attacks by Al Qaida in the 1990s had all occurred before the Iraq war. September 11 had happened eighteen months before it. We had therefore always been very aware of the threat and continued to be so. That was why, in his speech in his constituency on 5 March, the Prime Minister had referred to the fact that he had seen this threat coming before September 11 2001 and had spoken to other world leaders about it. To say that it had only started with the Iraq war was clearly completely wrong. Pressed as to whether the Prime Minister believed absolutely that the Iraq war had made no difference to the level of threat to the UK, the PMOS said that he was not in the business of rating the level of threat out of ten. It was enough to know that the level of threat had been high before the Iraq war and remained high today. Put to him that the security assessment must have changed in some way since the Madrid bombings last week – as indeed the extra amount of security on the streets and on the transport system showed, the PMOS pointed out that the measures relating to extra security on the transport system had been decided upon before the Madrid bombs. The level of threat was assessed on a daily basis. That would continue. He had absolutely no intention of providing a day-by-day commentary on it. As he had already made clear, the level of threat to the UK had been high before the Madrid attacks and remained high today. Asked if the security measures on the London Underground would be rolled out nationally, the PMOS said that this was an operational matter for the Transport Police. We would support them whatever they decided to do.

Asked if British interests had been threatened directly by Al Qaida before the Iraq war, the PMOS pointed out that British interests also included the lives of British citizens. Along with many other nationals, British citizens had been killed in the September 11 attacks – 2,900 people in all in one day. That wasn’t far short of the total that had been killed by terrorism in Northern Ireland over a period of thirty years. The scale of the problem had changed on September 11. However, it was important to recognise that it had existed beforehand. Asked if we were concerned about Al Qaida’s pattern of willingness and ability to attack soft targets, the PMOS said that the attacks showed no respect at all for innocent people and the sanctity of life. That was the common thread.

Briefing took place at 11:00 | Search for related news


  1. "a terrorist act had apparently helped to change the composition of the Spanish Government"

    A terrorist act in response to an act by the Government against the wishes of the people.

    Viva Espania, good to see people can simultaneously decry the actions of terrorism, and distinguish cause from effect and vote out the cause. Hasta la victoria siempre.

    A lesson for us all.

    Comment by Lodjer — 15 Mar 2004 on 4:38 pm | Link
  2. Terrorists having an impact on elections? USA in South America anyone?

    "A vote for your candidate is a vote for sanctions, a vote for ours is a vote for democracy"

    Comment by Lodjer — 15 Mar 2004 on 4:41 pm | Link
  3. Can we expect Jack Straw to address the people of Madrid and tell them that their city is "no less safe" because of the illegal assault on Iraq?

    Do we feel safer? Roll on the elections… Any differences in policy between the Tories and Labour is miniscule compared to the difference between our lives before Iraq and our lives afterwards.

    Comment by Ally Hodder — 15 Mar 2004 on 5:14 pm | Link
  4. Any difference between the Tories and Labour is miniscule – they both supported the war and both still do.

    If the next election is decided purely on the Iraq war then it will be Charles Kennedy walking into No.10

    Comment by Uncarved Block — 15 Mar 2004 on 5:24 pm | Link
  5. Presumably the difference is now about the same as the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in the US. Same pies, different fingers.

    Comment by Lodjer — 15 Mar 2004 on 5:27 pm | Link
  6. The Bloody Sunday massacres in Northern Ireland were the biggest single act of recruitment in half a century, for the IRA. This statement is now recognised as true.
    In comparison to the invasion of Iraq, this act was small beer.
    If the PMOS now expects the electorate to believe there will be no increase in terrorism as a result of the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis, he insults our intelligence.
    We have learnt absolutely nothing in a whole generation.

    Comment by Robin of Essex — 15 Mar 2004 on 8:33 pm | Link
  7. What the Spanish people have done is absolutly appaling, they have allowed their votes to be swayed by a terrorist atrocity. This is exactly the kind of thing the terrorists wanted and they have let them win and Tony Blair should tell them this.
    Whether Iraq was right or wrong (and it was on humanitarian grounds) they will always be casualties , military or civilian and we should bear these with a stiff upper lip.
    We shouldn’t give in to terrorism however we shouldn’t be to concerned about it either. Apart from extra security it doesnt affect us: we have much more chance of being struck by lightning.

    Comment by John Murphy — 15 Mar 2004 on 9:48 pm | Link
  8. Really tough questioning there, and an especially difficult time to be bound by protocol not to talk about the election results of another country. However, sooner or later they’ll be forced to comment, if only off the record. Whenthey do, I sincerely hope they have some numerate people looking very closely at the turnout issue (<a href="http://users.ox.ac.uk/~magd1368/weblog/2004_03_01_archive.html#107934979618555901">http://users.ox.ac.uk/~magd1368/weblog/2004_03_01_archive.html#107934979618555901).</a> The danger is that if they don’t, the sheer seductiveness of the argument powerfully put here (<a href="http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014618.php">http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014618.php</a&gt😉 will sweep all before it. Now is a time when popular myths can be formed in days – No10 must be ultra careful what it gives credence too, even through rebuttals.

    Comment by Tom Steinberg — 15 Mar 2004 on 4:38 pm | Link
  9. The Spanish people did not support the involvement of their country in Iraq.

    A direct result of their government’s decision to ignore their wishes and involve them in Iraq was last weeks bombing.

    So they voted out the Government.

    You are presumably suggesting that they should have then kept the government which they didn’t want, and most likely subjected themselves to further terrorist action. Very sensible.

    These issues will never be solved when people think in childish blinkered terms of Them(Evil) and Us(Good, and with Stiff Upper Lips).

    Comment by Lodjer — 16 Mar 2004 on 9:33 am | Link
  10. John, Lodjer, surely we must assume that the Spanish electorate considered issues besides the Madrid bombings and Spain’s involvement in the action in Iraq when deciding how to cast their votes? It seems implausibly simplistic to attribute the increased support for the socialists wholly to disapproval of the PP government’s decisions in this regard.

    Comment by Helen Wright — 16 Mar 2004 on 11:01 am | Link
  11. Good point Helen, I entirely agree to a point – but the very high turnout would seem to indicate that the attacks have had a high impact. Obviously at what level the impact is is impossible to tell.

    But knowing as we (i speak only in certainty for myself here) do very little of the nature of Spain’s internal politics, it is tempting to assume they vote solely on the issues we can interpret, and, as you say, miss the point.

    Comment by Lodjer — 16 Mar 2004 on 11:08 am | Link
  12. Lodjer – quite, and see Chris Lightfoot’s comment at <a href="http://www.downingstreetsays.org/archives/000348.html#comment440">http://www.downingstreetsays.org/archives/000348.html#comment440</a&gt; on the issue of turnout.

    The results of some pre-election polls that asked people how likely they were to go and vote, as well as for which party they intended to vote, would be useful in determining whether there’s anything in this idea, but neither Chris nor I have been able to find any.

    Comment by Helen Wright — 16 Mar 2004 on 12:47 pm | Link
  13. John Murphy: If, as you suggest, the Spanish people have "given in to terrorism" by voting out the government, then I for one agree with their actions 100%. It was well known before the war in Iraq the depth of anti-war feeling in Spain, and as a democratic government is "supposed" to reflect the wishes of their electorate (or the majority thereof), what do you expect? The outgoing government contemptuously ignored the wishes of its population in going to war, and as we are now aware our governments were warned of the dangers of INCREASING the risk or terrorism as a result of military action. Rather than being the apallingly cowardly act you describe it as, it is more a demonstration of a countrys dissatisfaction with its government, and it’s power to do something about that dissatisfaction. Tony Blair, you have been warned.

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 16 Mar 2004 on 5:55 pm | Link
  14. I assume all of you voicing the santomonious "we shouldn’t of done that" with regard to invading Iraq would also have argued that we should not of gone to war with Germany.
    Oh what a lovely rose tinted world of ignorant bliss you live in.
    Get real! this world is full of evil regimes and fanatics who reason with no one and have tortured beaten deprived and oppressed millions, including babies and young children. Just think about the truth of that for one minute.
    You like to think that these so called martyrs are led by honourable fair minded leaders. they are not!
    They send their twisted brainwashed followers to carry out their sick acts of mutilation and death on innocents including Babies and Children and many who only do good in this World, whilst living of the fat of the land themselves and enjoying all the western luxuries they purport to condemn.
    Unfortunatly the truth is that in this world there are to many so called liberal minded fools who’s tolerance and excuses of these atrocities only encourages further outrages.
    Sadly that is exactly what this vote of weakness on behalf of the Spanish electorate will bring about.

    Comment by Danny — 16 Mar 2004 on 10:36 pm | Link
  15. Nazi Germany = Iraq, Hitler = Saddam Hussein. (Admittedly, US foreign affairs correspondents did refer to both as "moderates" who could be "worked with".

    One of us lives in a pleasantly blinkered world, its you. An evil regime would be one which set off a bomb outside a Mosque in Beirut in the eighties as women worshippers were coming out – in order to kill one person. That was the British government. 85 people were killed (not including the target).

    It is acts like these which lead the people in these countries to their hatred of governments such as ours. And not without reason.

    It is pointless warring against the mosquitos without draining the swamp.

    Of course, most people are blissfully unaware of most of this, and without all the facts, you really shouldn’t judge.

    Comment by Lodjer — 17 Mar 2004 on 9:05 am | Link
  16. Well Done Lodjer
    I wondered who would be first to come up with a simpering excuse for the mindless killing and you take the prize.
    Would you like to give that as an excuse to the poor souls whose families have been raped, tortured and mutilated by these despots?

    Comment by Danny — 17 Mar 2004 on 10:34 am | Link
  17. There is a distinct difference between the two statements:

    "Bombs set off by Al-Qaida prompted the citizens of Spain to alter their opinions on the war on Iraq and elect an anti-war government that campaigned on its stance against the war"

    "Bombs set off by Al-Qaida prompted the citizens of spain to elect an anti-war government that campainged on its stance against the war"

    One of those statements says that the actions of Al-Qaida prompted a change in public opinion, as well as spurring people to action; the other merely spurred people to action.

    Public opinion *did not change*. The first statement is false. As for whether it spurred people into action they wouldn’t normally have taken? Any and every major event does that; whether it’s a national football game (win or loss) or a terrorist act, actions which impact the lives of large numbers of people (either through media or through direct influence) cause change in behavior.

    That bomb could have just as easily killed 30 Spanish soldiers in Iraq, and have the same effect; the bombs that did go off could have all been caught, and the press storm afterwards would have had the same effect. Many, many things could have happened to create this effect; all that was needed was to spur people into action. Opinion did not change – so all that was needed was an increase in issue voters in the polls.

    So I find it very, very difficult to accept what is blatantly spin: the idea that the actions of the Spanish people have given in to what Al-Qaida wanted. The Spanish people, like the British people, wanted nothing to do with that war in the first place; those bombs merely reminded people of the strength of their own convictions. Their opinion did not change; they voted that opinion.

    If there is a fool, it’s the Spanish government for not forseeing that fact, and postponing elections until after the tragedy had passed. We can all but hope that we won’t end up with a similar "reminder" of current national opinion: that the war on terror has not made the world a safer place.

    Comment by Gregory Block — 17 Mar 2004 on 10:44 am | Link
  18. I am not agreeing with the actions of the terrorists, or condoning or excusing them. I haven’t said that or implied it anywhere.

    I just have the sense to see what causes the actions. I suppose you imagine the terrorists were born evil?

    Comment by Lodjer — 17 Mar 2004 on 10:45 am | Link
  19. Hang on Danny, who are you having a go at here? Coz it sounds to me as though you are another of the "killing them in the name of humanitarian concerns is better than their own leaders killing them" school. Simpering excuse? I take it you prefer the fire and brimstone approach demonstrated to such bad effect by ours and the US governments? What do you suggest? War with any country that may harbour terrorists? Yup, that’ll help loads, as it has so far.

    Of course, no amount of excuses would ever assuage the grief of people affected by the likes of Saddam Hussain, but we can’t intervene in EVERY failed state in the world. So why Iraq? And why at that particular time? That is the problem most people have with the invasion of Iraq – the fact that there were other failed states (North Korea & Burma to name but 2) which seemed a higher priority than Iraq. And because of the Iraqi misadventure, more people are now more at risk of terrorism as a direct result of that action. So no doubt you will be pointlessly yelling as you are doing now at the futility of any lives lost in any terrorist action in this country, while extolling the virtues of waging war on all and sundry?

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 17 Mar 2004 on 10:53 am | Link
  20. Lodjer has looked at the terrorist situation with an eye on both sides of the argument.
    there is no point in going mad about someone willing to say that neither side is particulary nice.
    they just happen to see the truth

    Comment by Dikkie — 17 Mar 2004 on 11:26 am | Link
  21. I don’t disagree with intervention in theory. I disagree with its perpetuating cycle. As PapaLa… says, if it was purely humanitarian, why Iraq?

    The answer would be that it is to secure a supply of oil for the western world. But then – thats why the US installed Saddam Hussein 25 (or whatever it was) years ago. And why they (yes, them, not me) tolerated his brutality against his own people – even giving him dispensation to attack a US vessel, killing 35 US sailors (a dispensation which has only ever been granted to one other country, Israel).

    So what is being done different this time? Anything? what is to ensure that the same problems won’t be happening in another thirty years? If anyone thinks that the US have acted on humanitarian grounds, and/or some noble love of democracy, then I really do think they need to look further into it.

    Comment by Lodjer — 17 Mar 2004 on 11:29 am | Link
  22. noble love of oil and the sad fact that war seems to help governments become popular {in theory}.
    Bush seems to look to Maggie

    Comment by dikkie — 17 Mar 2004 on 11:46 am | Link
  23. from what I can tell America was baying for blood from whoever did 9/11.
    first they started blasting afganistan, but the american public felt cheated that they could not find the man who was supposed to have controled it.
    so they looked for another target, someone nobody would miss, and someone they could make everyone hate. they chose Sadam, Bush senior left him there and now bush Junior is carrying on with the same tact

    Comment by dikkie — 17 Mar 2004 on 11:52 am | Link
  24. Ah yes, the Falklands. I’d rather have won the ’86 quarter final personally.

    Comment by Lodjer — 17 Mar 2004 on 11:54 am | Link
  25. Prior to 9/11, Bush did try and start a war with China briefly, over that spying incident (which I can’t really remember now)

    I guess he hoped that some nice CNN coverage of American blowing things up would paper over the cracks in his presidential ability, such things as "talking", "thinking", and eating pretzels.

    Comment by Lodjer — 17 Mar 2004 on 11:57 am | Link
  26. It is well documented that Donald Rumsfeld’s immediate response to the attack on the World trade Centre was to invade Iraq. The plans to invade Iraq were being put forward even before George Bush got elected.

    The whole ‘war on terror’ has nothing to do with humanitarianism or democracy. It is just a means of keeping the US economy going and the rich Republicans in power.

    The US/UK have committed more acts of terror and atrocities in the last 50 years than any other organisation. If they truly want to stamp out terror then they should begin by stopping committing acts of terror themselves.

    Comment by Uncarved Block — 17 Mar 2004 on 12:23 pm | Link
  27. Amen.

    Although very very unlikely…

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 17 Mar 2004 on 12:29 pm | Link
  28. Couldn’t agree more. If you haven’t read it, I recommend Noam Chomsky – "Deterring Democracy", written before any of the war of terror, its claim that the US will have to find a replacement for the Cold War is freakily accurate.

    Comment by Lodjer — 17 Mar 2004 on 12:31 pm | Link
  29. Do I detect a certain level of doubt about the Bush/Blair integrity? Surely, with all these official secrets now out in the open thanks to Ms. Short, there is nothing much left to hide?

    Then again…

    <a href="http://tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=43&mode=&order=0&thold=0">http://tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=43&mode=&order=0&thold=0</a&gt;

    <a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/020404mysteriousreflections.html">http://www.prisonplanet.com/020404mysteriousreflections.html</a&gt;

    <a href="http://www.skolnicksreport.com/ootar44.html">http://www.skolnicksreport.com/ootar44.html</a&gt;
    <a href="http://www.skolnicksreport.com/ootar45.html">http://www.skolnicksreport.com/ootar45.html</a&gt;

    <a href="http://www.jackblood.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/madridstrategicinterest.htm">http://www.jackblood.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/madridstrategicinterest.htm</a&gt;

    <a href="http://proliberty.com/observer/20021209.htm">http://proliberty.com/observer/20021209.htm</a&gt;

    Thank God for the Bilderbergers – at least they don’t give us much to go on.

    Comment by HH — 18 Mar 2004 on 1:27 am | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)


This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Downing Street Says...

The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...


March 2004
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Feb   Apr »

Supported by


Disruptive Proactivity

Recent Briefings



Syndicate (RSS/XML)



Contact Sam Smith.

This site is powered by WordPress. Theme by Jag Singh