« Home Secretary mugged by Police Chief | Main | We're making a difference, say Scottish Tories »

Comments

Dacre is only just turning agin Brown????

He must be the last switcher in Britain.

Well done to those 12 Tory MP's who saw the light.

Does anyone know how Sir John Stanley MP voted on Abortion limits ?

Thanks

It's worrying that our party is becoming so dominated by the Crazy-Christian right. I agree that children need a father figure or male role-model and that we shouldn't be bringing children into the world deliberately without a father, but some attitudes of Tory MPs towards embryo research are terrifyingly backward.

The following dogmatists on our front bench rejected science in favour of superstition:

David Davis (Shadow home secretary)
Theresa May (Shadow leader of the house)
William Hague (Shadow foreign secretary)
Francis Maude (Shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster)
Michael Gove (Shadow children, schools and families secretary)
Eric Pickles (Shadow communities and local government secretary)
Dr Liam Fox (Shadow defence secretary)
Peter Ainsworth (Shadow environment, food & rural affairs secretary)
Owen Paterson (Shadow Northern Ireland secretary)
Chris Grayling (Shadow work and pensions secretary)
Caroline Spelman (Chairman of the Conservative Party)
Oliver Letwin (Chairman of the Conservative Research Department)
Patrick McLoughlin (Opposition chief whip)

Shame on them all. Perhaps they should witness a relative die of a horrific disease as I did and maybe then they wouldn't cling to their flat-Earth views. These are the sort of people who would have want Galileo put on trial.

Urm, Cleethorpes Rock? Much as I agree with your concerns about the growing influence of the Christian Right (which thankfully in this country doesn't appear to be quite as loopy as it is in the States; at least, it isn't yet), I should point out that including Oliver Letwin in that list isn't helping your case - he's descended from Ukrainian Jews and describes himself as atheist.

Matthew,

Sir John Stanley only voted on the 24 to 20 week change, and he voted against it.

MPs holding forth on abortion/termination of pregnancy is a bit like asking a dog to use a unicycle, it is as useful and as preposterous. The spectacle of MPs poncing and preening in front of the cameras is toe curling. Since when were their consciences and moral views of any interest except on the subject of expenses? Why the public do not demand that important matters be removed from the consideration of politicians is a deep mystery. Education, defence, the NHS, all utterly ruined by politicians, not once but repeatedly, and no one seems to get it. It seems we are doomed to go back over and over our mistakes to all eternity.

"It's worrying that our party is becoming so dominated by the Crazy-Christian right."

The opinion polls showed public opinion supporting a reduction of term limits and in favour of recognition of fatherhood.

I'm happy to accept your point of order, CJH.

Examiner makes a very useful point. I wish some MPs cared a bit more about the lives of people who have been born and the human suffering caused by diseases such as MND and Alzheimers, rather than by pompous theological pronouncements on what scientists do with a few cells in a petri dish. Let's not let the Tory party turn into the British version of the "Guns, Gays and God" branch of the Republicans.

In their 2005 book “Freakonomics” Levitt and Dubner make a convincing case for the significant reduction in crime in New York during the 1990s being due not to Mayor Giuliani’s policy of zero tolerance, but to the legalization of abortion in 1970, which effectively weeded out those who were most likely to grow into a life of crime. Although counter-arguments have been offered (see American Conservative May 9 2005) the notion of “pre-emptive execution” is one which has caused me, an ordinary middle-of-the-road conservative who is generally against abortion on demand but also strongly in favour of policies that reduce crime, some serious soul searching.

The fact that some prominent Conservative front benchers decided to vote in favour of writing fathers out of the script makes me wonder whether we will be seen as no better than Labour in the long run.

We have this party twittering on about making the family the bedrock of society and how boys need male role models etc, then members of the same party when left to their own devices show their true colours. Please tell me what the difference is between this party and Labour now when it comes to the family? I feel really sorry for IDS; I wonder how he must be feeling this morning after being stabbed in the back by some of his own colleagues?

The hypocrisy makes me sick and I shall not be voting for this party or contributing anything towards it while we have a bunch of left wing woolly liberals running the show. I hope other people do the same. I thought MPs were there to represent their constituent’s views not their own personal ones.

I used to read Peter Hitchens column with quite amusement, now I am beginning to take him seriously. None of the above? Sounds good to me.

"You can disagree with [my] conclusion but it's petty to reduce these serious issues of morality and scientific judgment to whether you are a political moderniser or not" - though plainly an issue petty enough for you to be able to reduce it to a party political issue - "If the Conservatives win the next election and if new MPs vote in similar proportion to the way their existing parliamentary parties vote then it is very likely that a tougher regime for abortion will be introduced".

Thank Christ where the Parties stand on abortion isn't yet a decent reason to distinguish between them.

I've no problem with requiring male role models to be considered, in fact all IDS wanted was for IVF mothers to be ASKED TO CONSIDER the need for a father figure or male role model. This needn't exclude lesbians from having IVF.

My problem is with MPs voting to restrict scientific rsearch into evil diseases on the grounds of theological superstition. The influence of Cornerstone's "Kinder, Kirche, Kuche" block within the party must not be allowed to widen.

I'm split right down the middle on these two issues. I do think it's important to recognise the right to have a father (or father figure). Fathers contribute to the raising of children in ways that mothers don't. Even lesbians have fathers that have contributed to their upbringing.

I am glad that the 24 week abortion limit remains. The scientific evidence simply doesn't call for reducing it. Those wanting to limit women's right to choose can do so on moral/religious grounds but I disagree with their opinion.

I'm just sad that many have decided to adopt the same anti-scientific method used in the climate change issue to twist the facts for their political and I suspect religious goals. I am becoming more worried about the resurgent Conservative party that I belong to giving succour to the rise of Republican style politics on the right of the party. I have never voted for any party other than Conservative but if Cameron doesn't get a grip of these tendencies I will give serious thought to voting for someone else.


"Thank Christ where the Parties stand on abortion isn't yet a decent reason to distinguish between them"

The stance that most Labour MPs take on free vote issues (though credit to Nick Palmer for proposing 22 weeks) is certainly one factor that would cause me to vote against Labour.

Cleethorpes Rock - I somehow doubt that Peter Ainsworth, Francis Maude, Theresa May, or Caroline Spelman could be regarded as religious fanatics.

Harcore Conservative - I think a vote of 145 to 12 against this piece of feminist spite is pretty emphatic.

Hey Cleethorpes Rock

I could describe those who voted the other way as atheistic fanatics who see human beings as mere lumps of meat. I won't though because in most cases its wouldn't be true and I wouldn't want to descend to your level cretinous bigotry.

Religion has no place in politics just as politics should have no place in religion. In that sense all MPs should act while using the power given to them by all their constituents as though they were atheists.

The alternative as seen in the US or many middle-East countries will only lead to the death of rational politics.

Erasmus - the words "crazy" or "dogmatic" used by Cleethorpes Rock are not on the same level as "cretinous bigotry" which you used. It is you who has lowered the tone.

Yesterday was a sad day for this country and a disappointment in the way that a number of Conservative MP's voted.

I cannot in all conscience see how we can justify the continued slaughter of unborn children as a means of eugenics or birth control. There is something wrong with our society that tolerates this.

On the question of fathers, the fact is that without a man there is no child. It's a biological necessity. The law is now very strange in saying that clinics do not need to consider the need for a father when a father is required by definition. What is now said is that men have a use to provide sperm, beyond that we have no use.

Erasmus, I do not think that Human Beings are lumps of meat. I believe in the dignity of Human Life, which is why I support research on stem cells and hybrid embryos to find cures for the most appaling diseases.

Sean and any others sad enough to know the religious inclinations of MPs on that list I posted: I have accepted that not all the names can be associated with the Crazy-Christian/ Krazy Katholic line being used to halt scientific progress.

"Religion has no place in politics just as politics should have no place in religion. In that sense all MPs should act while using the power given to them by all their constituents as though they were atheists."

I've got an even better idea. How about MPs vote the way that their constituents want them to vote!

I find it extraordinary how pathetic and trivial some people can be. As soon as there is a bye election or local elections or an important vote in parliament all of these people wo w are epected to believe are tories come out of the woodwork and start using imflammatory language to criticise not only our party, but the british people aswell.


BTW Where is our great 'pro-european conservative' Justin Hinchcliffe? Why isn't he here calling for the harmonisation of EU abortion law? For once I would support him!

"Religion has no place in politics just as politics should have no place in religion."

Religious ritual may have no place in politics, but since most modern religions require their practitioners to act ethically, it's hard to see how you could separate religion from politics. Unless, of course, there's no place for ethics in politics.

"I wish some MPs cared a bit more about the lives of people who have been born and the human suffering caused by diseases such as MND and Alzheimers, rather than by pompous theological pronouncements on what scientists do with a few cells in a petri dish." (Cleethorpes Rock at 16:17)

Well, I wish people in general cared more about disabled and ill people's lives and would stop referring to us as "suffering".

MP's are the representatives of a nation and unfortunately this nation seems largely to have a very apathetical and/or uncaring attitude towards unborn babies, which many MP's - particularly on the Lib Dems and the Labour benches - tragically seem to share. Shame on them.

The biggest thing I suffer with is society's ignorances and prejudices. We have as much right to life - in all it's forms - as you do. I thought 'equal opportunities for all' was the new mantra, but like most soundbites the rhetoric does not match the reality.

Able-bodied people have no idea how much upset and hurt it causes me and many other disabled people to hear scientists, MP's and others (including carer's') repeatedly talk of the "plight" "suffering" "tragic" and "horror" of disability. What is truly tragic is their own lack of tact and understanding, in my opinion.

I really object to people deciding a person's fundamental right to life according to some 'expert' perceptions of what a decent quality of life is, which there is no objective way of measuring. Everyone's ides of a 'good' quality of life is different.

My parents was told when I was born 'severely' disabled 30 years ago that my quality of life would be awful and I should be left to die - I now have top qualifications, a good quality of life and live independently, despite still being severely disabled. All of which (in my opinion) just goes to show how little doctors and scientists knew both then and now.

I also take exception to the description of an unborn baby as "a few cells". Well we are ALL just a few cells, but murder of a born child or adult "collection of cells" usually results (quite rightly) in criminal action, but it is perfectly legal to do the same act to an unborn baby - who is helpless to do anything to protect itself.

There is also absolutely no medical evidence - despite many years of research - that the use of hybrid embryos will produce any 'miracle cures' - this is just frankenstein science for the sake of it, nothing to do with reducing disabilities.

As for the implications of a country that advocates total eradication of disability - an impossibility without very draconian measures - and the killing of babies in the womb for social reasons or because they may be born less than 'perfect' ... the consequences are truly frightening.

Disabled people are human beings, NOT faulty cells to be discarded. Well done Nadine Dorries for getting attention to this issue, hopefully one day society's attitudes will get more enlightened.

Out of interest, which 12 Tory MPs voted against the need for a father?

Doug: As there are more people in Britain that believe in God than there are Atheists, by your logic shouldn't all MPs act as if they were theists?

In our liberal pluralist democracy everyone can assemble their own views on religious and ethical matters. The idea that all of some peoples views are invalid because they include a belief in God is quite ridiculous.

"Religion has no place in politics just as politics should have no place in religion. In that sense all MPs should act while using the power given to them by all their constituents as though they were atheists."

You make the mistake of conflating atheism with 'neutrality'.

Atheism is itself a creed: it has doctrine and even a form of liturgy with the perpetual intoning of the secularist enlightenment. Those who do not subscribe to its tenets are riduculed, and those who challenge its agenda are persecuted.

One may justifiably be as wary of atheism as one is of theism, and advocating that the atheist worldview ought to predominate is simply fundamentalism.


fwmckenzie, it was in fact 13.

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2008-05-20&number=197

Mostly, the usual wets, but one or two surprising names.

Many thanks Sean.

These votes on IVF and abortion show that "culture war" politics is starting to define the parties in the UK as it has here in the US for the last generation.

I can understand that some may be alarmed by the "Christian Right." My experience, as an Republican in the US, is that, over time, the economic conservatives like me begin to take up the social issues of the social conservatives and the social conservatives begin to take up the issues of the economic conservatives. You end up with a "big tent" of conservatives who respect each other.

If you want to know what fundamentalist Christians are really like, I recommend "Spirit and Flesh" by James M. Ault, Jr. He started out as a liberal sociologist...

RE: Cleethorpes Rock @ 15:58

"It's worrying that our party is becoming so dominated by the Crazy-Christian right. I agree that children need a father figure or male role-model and that we shouldn't be bringing children into the world deliberately without a father, but some attitudes of Tory MPs towards embryo research are terrifyingly backward."

Maybe you only see them as backwards because some have gone too far forwards. Forwards into what, I don't know - but killing a fellow human is far from morally forward.

As for "Crazy-Christian right", I don't see how being a Christian is "crazy". Maybe you're the crazy one...

"The following dogmatists on our front bench rejected science in favour of superstition."

I'd hardly call religion superstition, or is that the "forwards" thing to do? Science only tells us so much - to believe it gives the full picture is foolish.

"Shame on them all. Perhaps they should witness a relative die of a horrific disease as I did and maybe then they wouldn't cling to their flat-Earth views. These are the sort of people who would have want Galileo put on trial."

I'm sure many of them have watched relatives die of a horrific disease. I have, and I am less than half the age of most (actually, all) of our front benchers. The fact is to do with someone's morales and beliefs.

As for flat-earth views - that is just ridiculous. You are comparing religion to primitive perspectives. It's time you learnt to respect everyone, and everyone's beliefs - even if you think they are wrong.

Can you perchance explain what you mean by, 'These are the sort of people who would have want Galileo put on trial'?

"Harcore Conservative - I think a vote of 145 to 12 against this piece of feminist spite is pretty emphatic”.

Sean, what concerns me is that 12 Conservative MP’s voted against (at least they had the courage of their convictions) and 35 Conservative MP’s didn’t vote at all. That is 47 MP’s who either are opposed to having fathers on the scene or are not convinced enough to vote for it.

Given that having a male role model etc is a central plank of this parties policy, I think that as almost a quarter of its MP’s cannot support this position, including some influential front bench MP’s, it does tend to raise a question mark or two. After what happened in this regard yesterday I am now convinced that this party is as much an enemy to the family as Labour. A bloody disgrace.

When I was ten I had the privilege of spending six weeks in the care of two lesbian couples (yes, four whole lesbians) who ran a residential summer school on a farm in Wales. The upbringing those women gave their own children was second to none. The need for role models is clearly negligible compared to the need for devoted care.

If we’re going to create criteria for who’s eligible for assistance with fertility, can we at least make them relevant? I believe postcode, for example, is a far better predictor of outcomes.

The inescapable logic of the fatherhood argument is that children who suffer the death of their father have to cope not only with the emotional distress, but also a worse upbringing. The suggestion is tactless, cruel and inaccurate in the extreme.

RE: Hardcore Conservative @ 16:35

I concur with your first 2 paragraphs. Unfortunately some see getting votes as the most important thing.

Saltmaker there is a world of difference between children who have lost a father which is tragic and tough on them, and being denied one in the first place. Society and this party cannot have it both ways.

We are lectured by Cameron and Co on “feckless” fathers and how important fathers are because kids (especially boys) overall have a much better chance of doing better if dad is around than not.

Against this backdrop a significant number of this parties MP’s will not then support party policy when left to their own devices. Either this party if four square behind this policy or it isn’t, and at the moment it isn’t, although it claims to be. That is hypocrisy and worthy of Labour at its worst.

On this I think the party should have stood firm and sent a clear united message about the role of fathers. How can this party now take the moral high ground when insisting that “feckless” fathers should play a role in the upbringing of their children, while voting to undermine this very principle?

I wonder how long it will be before the voters wake up to this double standard?

There's nothing wrong with being a Christian and keeping your morality and politics in line with your professed beliefs.

Tony Blair should try it.

Gordon Brown, however, may not be a Christian. I've never heard him say he is.

I'm just hoping that an incoming Conservative government will have more immediately important things to concern itself with [like reversing the damage to the economy from a decade-and-a-half of wanton socialist misrule] than to waste further parliamentary time on revisiting the abortion issue. To be honest, it's not something which comes high in the list-of-issues for ordinary people - they're more concerned about petrol/diesel at £1.25/litre and how to avoid paying higher-rate income tax.

Address the real issues - and don't fret about the fate of unwanted zygotes.

We are lectured by Cameron and Co on “feckless” fathers and how important fathers are because kids (especially boys) overall have a much better chance of doing better if dad is around than not.

That is true and I think they are wrong (factually). This would be a good time for Graeme Archer to give us one of his wonderful insights into statistics and causality.

These voting figures demonstrate Labour and the Lib Dems are on the whole pro-abortion, while we are on the whole more pro-life. I don't see why we cannot become less uneasy about this.

Bearing in mind (as I understand happened) that the Labour whips were aggressively seeking to force their MPs into the lobbies for pro-abortion, and anti-family, in what was supposed to be a free vote, David Cameron should promise to repeal, with three-line whipped votes, the ‘saviour siblings’ and anti-father and provisions (although he may wish to retain a free vote, for his personal reasons, on banning animal-human hybrid embryos), and on measures to tighten the abortion law. This would be more in line with public opinion than Labour and the Lib Dems, which is uneasy about the huge number of abortions.

The debate about the influence of Christians like me (crazy or otherwise) is a bit of a smokescreen. C/Rock is against a particular view, whether that is held by Christians, atheists or vegetarians. The question is whether C/Rock's stance is right, and with any MP the ultimate issue is how he or she votes - I personally would have no problem with a wacko atheist as my MP if I voted how I would like him to.

Suprised by the outcome of this vote as I'd expected a majority to vote for a reduction. Very disappointed at the significant number who didn't vote at all. I hope they had decent excuses, abstaining on a free vote seems an odd way for an MP to behave.

This wasn't just a religious issue. There were many of no religion voting to reduce it. To me, i didn't care so much about the time limit, but the extent of abortion. I don't think that the whole thing was in any way damaging to the conservatives, apart from Ed Vaisey, who made some assinine iterventions. I firmly believe that we are increasingly seen as the party that will tackle the problem of breakdown britian, and that people are increasingly looking for old fashioned family values in many areas, as long as they're not accompanied by traditional prejudices.

Agree with NH @ 21.38 above.

Malcolm - I noticed that - but I'd rather people who hadn't read all the evidence didn't vote.

"That is true and I think they are wrong (factually). This would be a good time for Graeme Archer to give us one of his wonderful insights into statistics and causality."

I think Graeme is of the view that children do benefit from having fathers who take part in their upbringing.

"The inescapable logic of the fatherhood argument is that children who suffer the death of their father have to cope not only with the emotional distress, but also a worse upbringing. "

I think that the loss of a parent is likely to be a disadvantage to a child, certainly.

"On this I think the party should have stood firm and sent a clear united message about the role of fathers. How can this party now take the moral high ground when insisting that “feckless” fathers should play a role in the upbringing of their children, while voting to undermine this very principle? "

A very fair point. I struggle to see where those Conservatives who voted against, or abstained, were coming from.

re: Sean Fear

It is 12 Tory MPs (not 13) who voted against need for a father - Public Whip counts Andrew Pelling as a Conservative, but I understand he's no longer in receipt of the Whip (and the Commons authorities describe him as Ind Con)


Nick, thanks. You are correct.

I didn't mean to describe all Christians as crazy. I'm sure plenty of Christians, like me are in favour of medical research on hybrid embryos and many atheists are against it.

I am in favour of legal, safe, rare abortion and think a powerful case has been made to reduce the limit to 20 weeks. I also agree that and IVF baby should ideally have a father figure or male role model.

I think most Christian opinion in this county is pretty moderate; the thing worrying me was the extent to which there was a body of opinion within the Conservative Party aligning with the Republican moralising right. This debate, both in parliament and on this blog has demonstrated the value of free votes. I hope that these issues can remain free votes to avoid differences of opinion becoming party-political fault-lines, as in the US.

The take-home message here is that if the Conservatives win the next election, all these issues will be straight back on the table and the law will be changed.

I'm pro-choice - pro a woman choosing whether or not she wants a baby before it is conceived, not after.
This is not an argument about religion. It is about encouraging people to think rationally before they have sex whether they want a baby and encouraging them to use contraception responsibly if they do not want to conceive.
Neither of these two things are difficult. Human beings are capable of rational decisions and contraception is free on the NHS.
I think it's about time we stopped making it so easy for people to get an abortion as last-minute contraception and start encouraging people to take responsibility for their actions. And yes Government does have a role to play in that, because our tax money pays for women to have free and universal access to contraception and also funds the abortions they need when they can't be bothered to use it properly or think carefully before they have sex whether they really want to get pregnant.

I am finding it hard to reconcile being the party of reduced interfence in people's lives with this insistence on demonising women who want to make their own choices. It makes me feel really worried that I am apparently on the labour side of this issue (not something that often happens to me!. I don't think politicians should be judging the public but should follow the scientific advice- there are other ways to reduce the number of abortions- you could help women to prevent conception in the first place, you could educate boys and girls properly about sex and you could support families in plenty of other ways. Trumpeting judgments that make it sound as though there are women out there who are subjecting themselves to late abortions as some sort of hobby is really unattractive behaviour in any political party.
Sorry to be a bit ranty- bit of an emotive subject!

I'm all for reduced interference in people's lives, but I don't think we can pretend that a life and death issue such as abortion can be bracketed with such issues as how individuals choose to spend their money or whether they choose to have private dental insurance.
How a society views human life is fundamental to its wellbeing and I believe that Government should have a significant role to play in helping to reduce the abortion rate and indeed the rate of teenage pregnancy in our country. Surely most people want to see fewer abortions and fewer 14 and 15-year-old mothers?
I agree with Helen that better education about contraception and sex, especially for young people, is the way forward and I would like to see a Conservative Government making that a priority.

I think it was right that the 24 weeks limit stays there. As Ive posted on my own blog some time ago, there simply isnt a good enough case for it. A photograph is just an image, nothing more. Only numbers speak to me on this issue and the numbers dont provide the compelling case that Nadine Dorries claims to have. The list of 20 reasons wasnt a case and some of them were hardly reasons by themselves.

I have little doubt the campaign will step up a gear if the Conservatives win in 2 years time. I dsiagree with such a tactic. This is a very serious matter and shouldnt be treated like a political game as often happens with other issues.

It seems to me the Tories are still riven by the fault line between authoritarianism and libertarianism -- and unfortunately the authoritarians still have the upper hand, despite Cameron's best efforts. I think it is far better for the country at large, not just the party, to attack NuLabor® authoritarianism on all sides. If they happen to behave in a libertine way on a few matters, don't knee-jerkedly jump back to the 1950s in a futile search for mummy's mores and morals. The fact is the government has no more business peering into your bedroom than it does rifling through your travel records or imposing Gordon Brown's moral standards on who qualifies for a tax rebate, er, benefit, um, 10p rate substitute or whatever they're calling it today.

"It seems to me the Tories are still riven by the fault line between authoritarianism and libertarianism -- and unfortunately the authoritarians still have the upper hand, despite Cameron's best efforts."

Cameron voted for 20 weeks.

It's not as simple as saying libertarian vs. authoritarian.

DBX,
US Presidential candidate Ron Paul is a constitutionalist and libertarian. He was the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988. Ron Paul is also pro-life. He opposes abortion being a federal issue, but does not seem to have a problem with individual states banning abortion:

Ron Paul wants states to be able to criminalise abortion:

"...Political expediency is never an excuse for ignoring the Constitution. The Supreme Court did so in Roe v. Wade, with tragic consequences. The states are now unable to enact laws to protect the weakest, smallest, and most innocent human lives. A society that does not respect life cannot be expected to respect liberty. Our goal must be to restore respect for the Constitution and states' rights. Only then can states properly restore respect for unborn life by criminalizing the act of abortion." -- Ron Paul's website


If a libertarian in America could theoretically support a state outlawing abortion, perhaps a libertarian in the UK could support our Parliament banning abortion. Given that a foetus is a living human being, I can't see why a libertarian would necessarily have to oppose attempts to limit abortion through criminal law.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker