to think it was disrespectful to take a photo here?

(69 Posts)
LaceAndRoses Sun 03-Mar-13 22:52:10

Just had a lovely holiday in New York, went about 6 years ago so we decided to do all the tourist things again.

Statute of Liberty, Empire State etc. Common places where you'd expect to see people taking group photos.

We were lucky enough to go to Ground Zero too. My DH has a friend whos pregnant wife died on 9/11, he wanted to be there but found it hard at the same time and wanted to be by himself to find her name and pay respect to her.

I read some of the names and was finding it hard myself (even though I was never directly affected) so I wanted to have a couple of minutes silence and sat down and was just watching people.

I was amazed at the amount of group photos being taken. The type of photos that people would take and show their friends and say "and this is us at Ground Zero" like it was a major tourist attraction such as the Statue of Liberty.

My husband found me and asked could we leave because he was angry because someone had asked him to move whilst he was reading his friends name so they could take a group photo.

Maybe I'm being unreasonable ... I'm not sure.

SirBoobAlot Sun 03-Mar-13 22:57:07

Thing is, they've turned it into a beautiful memorial. Of course it will be different for everyone, especially those who have a personal connection, but if you don't, it's hard to connect the loss. They've built a museum and visitor center... Personally I think that is bad taste. But if they turn it into a tourist destination, then it will, sadly, be treated like one.

WorraLiberty Sun 03-Mar-13 22:57:29

It is a major tourist attraction though and due to that, you have to expect people to take photos. It's also been all over the world media so as much as it holds some awful and private memories for's still very much in the public eye.

The same as when you visit Auschwitz and other such tragic places.

I can see why your DH was upset, but how does he know the people in the photo didn't have close family who died there too?

Pandemoniaa Sun 03-Mar-13 22:59:07

Without knowing the groups of people, it's not entirely fair to judge.

Only I have also been one of those people taking a picture of others at Ground Zero. In my case because the 6 of us were there to remember someone very dear to us who was lost in the World Trade Center on 9/11. His parents had specifically asked that we bring pictures home too.

I'd not have dreamt of asking someone to move so we could take a group photo and I quite understand your dh being upset at this happening but sometimes you can't assume other people's motives are trivial either.

Carolra Sun 03-Mar-13 23:00:19

I was there on that day in 2001 and I find it almost impossible to visit, I've been back twice and I would not take photographs... I'd feel exactly the same about it as your DH. So no, YANBU. But it's been turned into a tourist attraction, so people treat it as such... So whilst I don't blame anyone for taking pics, I'd want no part in it.

SweetSeraphim Sun 03-Mar-13 23:00:46

Ah, but different people take different things from it, don't they? I can see why it might offend some - and I can see why others would be ok with it,

Flojobunny Sun 03-Mar-13 23:01:36

It is a tourist attraction though. It's been in the news so much. Lots of people have photos with the towers on and go back and take photos as it is now.
It is awful when you think about it being the place where so many people died but I don't think those taking photos quite view it like that.

I'm completely on the fence on this one. I don't think anyone is BU - other than the fact that the individuals were being unreasonable asking your husband to move. When I visited Auschwitz I personally felt that I couldn't take photographs, it just didn't feel right to me but I can't call other people who did take photos wrong. I don't know the answer, people want to take photos of a newsworthy place.

BuntyPenfold Sun 03-Mar-13 23:02:21

I think it is ok to take photos. I think asking someone to move is out of order. They should just have waited.
I was there last year and it was very busy, but people were mostly subdued.

Well, presumably they weren't mooning at the memorial, so I doubt any 'disrespect' was intended. And it is possible that people take photographs of the place because either someone they knew died there, or they are taking a photo to show someone else who was bereaved in the incident (eg 'We went to ground zero to remember [person] even though you couldn't be with us yourself, Granny')
It's not unreasonable to be upset by other people's behaviour when you are thinking about someone you lost, it would be unreasonable to demand they get out of your way and prioritize you over their own needs.

Interesting question.

Do people take photos in Auschwitz I wonder?

I think if we went there, we might take photos. If only for the kids to look at later and remind themselves that their grandma spent time there. We could use them to talk about the war, and what the human race can learn from it.

Your husband might have been reading a familiar name, the other tourist might want to photograph a familiar name.

eavesdropping Sun 03-Mar-13 23:05:06

Not unreasonable to take the photos - you don't know what connection they might have had. Unreasonable asking your DH to move however.

YABU calling it Ground Zero though - New Yorkers don't like that at all.

DonkeysDontRideBicycles Sun 03-Mar-13 23:06:10

Perhaps they have been many times before, have paid their respects, this time wanted a group photo. They may have their own private reasons for wanting a group photo.

Personally I find the whole aura of interest and moneymaking ventures concerning the sinking of the Titanic rather off putting and distasteful but we all have different pet hates.

I'm sorry your husband was upset.

LaceAndRoses Sun 03-Mar-13 23:06:57

I do understand all your points.

I suppose taking just a photo of what it looks like now isn't quite as bad (in my view) - I just find it so disrespect to for a group of tourists to be happy and smiling in a photo of Ground Zero to be the backdrop.

And Pandemoniaa you are right, and I shouldn't judge everyone for it and make assumptions - that's really wrong of me.

I think it's just because I saw so many people do it, that they wouldn't all have the same poignant and moving reason that you do.

I don't think some people grasp the terrible thing that happened there and the thousands of people that died there - and realise that it's not just a tourist attraction.

It wasn't Auschwitz, but I went to another concentration camp memorial with my mother about 20 years ago, and she took lots of photographs. She kept making me go and stand in front of various focal points, which I didn't much care for (hard to summon up a cheesy grin when you're standing on top of a mass grave...) But I don't think her motives were either malicious or trivial.

serin Sun 03-Mar-13 23:07:26

The taking of photos per se would not bother me for the reasons Pandemonium gives but I would be a bit hmm at groups behaving as if they were on a day out at Alton Towers.

LaceAndRoses Sun 03-Mar-13 23:07:56

YABU calling it Ground Zero though - New Yorkers don't like that at all.

Sorry if I offended you.

I think that's disrespectful. I've been to Auschwitz on a school trip and as a a group of teenagers (not exactly known for tact!) I don't think any of us took photos. Just because there's a museum there now (presumably explaining what happened that day, not full of fun and games), doesn't mean anyone should treat it like a day out to the zoo. People are obsessed with photographing everything these days, really pisses me off, whats wrong with your memory?

Morloth Sun 03-Mar-13 23:08:00

YABU, it is a major tourist attraction now.

A part of history.

MechanicalTheatre Sun 03-Mar-13 23:08:19

I think it's a bit weird. But I think taking photos of everything quite weird. I would rather just do stuff, not take a photo every five seconds.

I was out with a group a few weeks ago and they must have taken 100 photos. I dunno how they can be arsed, and I hate having a million photos of me up on FB.

BlueSkySunnyDay Sun 03-Mar-13 23:09:02

I wouldnt be surprised by people taking photographs but I am surprised they asked him to move to do so, it seems a bit insensitive. I would have said "no I cant I am paying my respects to my friend in front of her name"

thebody Sun 03-Mar-13 23:09:17

You have no control over this.

My dd was involved in a major incident which was broadcasted on its anniversary in feb. we had no control over the sky news pictures that again dredged up the event. It was upsetting for us and dd as we hadnt even seen those new pictures.that's life I am afraid and people don't mean to offend.

So very sorry for your friend.

EduCated Sun 03-Mar-13 23:11:33

What is it called, if its not Ground Zero? Sorry, genuine question; I've not heard it called anything else. I never knew there was any dislike of that naming.

hellhasnofurylikeahungrywoman Sun 03-Mar-13 23:14:37

A few years ago two local children were murdered. We had literally coachloads of people divert to visit our churchyard, while there they ate fish and chips and posed with their children, in the graveyard, for photographs. It was treated like a fun family day out. Some people want photographs of things other people would never dream of taking or posing for.

bedmonster Sun 03-Mar-13 23:15:34


wanted to be by himself to find her name

Obviously devastating that his friends DW died, but she wasn't the only person to lose her life. Everyone in the world knew what happened that day. Thousands of lives have been affected due to it. People are still mourning.
Everyone there had the right to be there.

You don't have to be 'directly affected' to be able to show emotion for something, or to be curious about the area in which it happened.

Friends of mine have been to Auschwitz and taken photos. It's fascinating. It's morbid. But events of what happened there are so well known, and so recent in history that you almost have to 'see it in the flesh' to believe it.

The people in the 'group shots' possibly had a reason for being there too.

LaceAndRoses Sun 03-Mar-13 23:16:23

Just read up on it EduCated

You should just refer to it as the World Trade Center site.

Ground Zero was coined by the media and people do find it offensive.

Glad that I know this now and won't use that reference again.

eavesdropping Sun 03-Mar-13 23:17:16

EduCated - it's known as the World Trade Center Site.

Op - you didn't offend me, don't worry, I'm not a New Yorker...but I'm going there later this year and have seen time and time again on travel forums people being told not to call it Ground Zero, they find it offensive.

thebody Sun 03-Mar-13 23:18:41

Hell that's disgusting.

I found in our situation people have been lovely but because our children involved are under age they are protected by law thank goodness.

However just after the event reporters were offering cash to other kids to talk about our girls!! Nasty.

LaceAndRoses Sun 03-Mar-13 23:19:10

I'm unsure why you quoted

- wanted to be by himself to find her name

What was wrong with him doing that? Me and the rest of the world understand that not just one person was affected by this senseless tragedy.

I was annoyed that someone asked him to move.

I would never do that.

If there was a particular reason I wanted a photo in the exact spot someone was standing there then I would wait for them to move.

dinnersinthedawg Sun 03-Mar-13 23:22:36

Completely agree with you OP - when DH and I visited to pay our respects a few years ago we were shocked that people were taking photos. Hugely disrespectful in my opinion.

GroupieGirl Sun 03-Mar-13 23:23:11

I visited Toul Sleng in Cambodia a few years ago, and whilst we took a few pictures, it was not necessary as the feeling of being there is not something you forget easily.

aufaniae Sun 03-Mar-13 23:23:49

Not directly relevant to the OP, but perhaps interesting.

I was in NY on September 11th. Within just a 3 days or so of the incident, products relating to it started appearing on the streets. People were selling t-shirts with pictures of the towers and slogans like "God Bless America" and "I survived the attack". Shops everywhere were selling their postcards of the towers and American flags, and people covered their cars with little flags.

It was such a different approach from what we're used to in the UK. After Diana died for example, people selling flowers to the crowds were getting abuse for profitting from the tragedy. But in NY, it wasn't seen as exploitative at all, instead it was a way of showing solidarity. They even had a name for it: "Patriotic Buying".

edam Sun 03-Mar-13 23:27:13

Asking someone to move so you can take a photo at a memorial to the dead is incredibly crass.

bedmonster Sun 03-Mar-13 23:27:37

I don't know, it just jumped out at me that he was trying to do it sort of privately. Nothing wrong with that, but it's to be expected that there will be lots of people there.
Wasn't trying to annoy, sorry. I think it depends on how he as asked too. In your first post you didn't mention their mood, but in the second you said that they were happy and grinning (I can't check back without losing my post but something along those lines). We x posted so I didn't see that second piece of info until now.
I dunno really, it's a massive deal. People will flock to it.
But I do hope your DH stuck around to find what he was looking for smile
Sorry again if I upset you.

I don't think its surprising that there are lots of people there, but group photos? Asking someone to move for a photo? That is crass and disrespectful. If I were there I would probably be quite quiet and respectful (similar behaviour to being in a church). Don't think thats unreasonable.

LaceAndRoses Sun 03-Mar-13 23:36:59

Yes your comment has really upset me actually.

Some people said YABU and some YANBU. I do agree that I was being unreasonable to make assumptions and that yes unfortunately it is going to always be viewed as a tourist attraction and as such treated like one.

I can accept that.

But when you said Everyone there had the right to be there.

I never once said that anyone there didn't have the right to be there. I don't think my reason for being there was any more important than anyone elses.

All I said was that it saddened me to see people taking photos as if they were at a normal tourist attraction such as the Empire State.

Your comments have really saddened me.

LaceAndRoses Sun 03-Mar-13 23:40:19

it's to be expected that there will be lots of people there.

I never said otherwise.

I do not think that 9/11 was a personal tragedy for me and my husband which you seem to be suggesting.

It doesn't matter to me who or how many people were there in the slightest.

Anyway I can't read anymore because this is greatly upsetting me. I'll come back to the thread tomorrow.

Frogman Sun 03-Mar-13 23:46:17

I would be feeling the same way as you OP. Infact when I go to places like that I get annoyed when people make noise or show any signs of disrespect. I always feel that places where something of such magnitude have happened should be places of contemplation and silence.

hoobnoob Mon 04-Mar-13 00:35:33

I understand your point OP.
it's hard to know why people would want photos but I guess you can't know people's reasons.

I visited the war memorial museum in Ho Chi Minh City last year and it has a huge (very anti American) section with massive pictures of children who had been burnt with napalm, really, really shocking stuff. This guy next to me was taking pictures of his wife/partner stood next to these pictures. I just couldn't believe it...

MorganMummy Mon 04-Mar-13 00:45:18

I was visiting the gas chambers at Auschwitz and there were people videotaping it. It seemed very wrong to me (aged 19) but now I look back I can see that there was no disrespectful intent. I still don't understand why they wanted to, though, it is a place you can't forget the feeling of once you've been there.

glastocat Mon 04-Mar-13 01:47:23

I've also been to Auschwitz and watched people posing beside the skull and cross bones signs at the electric fence. Very odd. We didn't take any photos, most people didn't.

MidniteScribbler Mon 04-Mar-13 02:19:12

I think that it's difficult because this is an event that occured in the lifetimes of the people visiting. It's not yet an event consigned to "history". We don't consider the issue as much when visiting other memorial sites as they aren't events that most of us lived through, although most tourist sites are very often a momument or memorial to some person or event in history.

AmberLeaf Mon 04-Mar-13 02:32:15

I don't understand why it is ok to visit such places, but not to take a photo?

But unless it is directly personal to you, why go anyway?

Morloth Mon 04-Mar-13 02:36:07

Part of surviving as a human is not caring too much IMO.

I went to the WTC site, I was sad and then I shook it off.

It is a defense mechanism I think.

MechanicalTheatre Mon 04-Mar-13 02:44:46

I don't think it's taking photos exactly, but taking photos of people smiling like they're at a tourist attraction. Or taking photos with people in at all.

It's a bit weird, especially when there's people in the same place who may have lost relatives/friends there and you're just a tourist. But then it is a bit odd to go to those places at all. I went to Sachsenhausen concentration camp and it affected me quite badly and I'm not sure how I feel about going to places where terrible stuff has happened as a tourist. Maybe they should just have specifically guided tours.

Tee2072 Mon 04-Mar-13 04:07:56

But they are at a tourist attraction.

Right or wrong, that's what it is.

I had no idea the term Ground Zero was incorrect. Interesting.

DeWe Mon 04-Mar-13 09:50:58

I took photos at the Battle of Britain memorial. I wasn't being disrespectful.
I was taking photos of my grandad's name for my parents for whom it would be too far to go. I did take a nice photo of my children sitting on the grass looking at the memorial too. My Grandad would have been very proud to see them gazing at his name.

freddiefrog Mon 04-Mar-13 10:19:27

A pic of the WTC site popped up on my FB feed a couple of weeks ago. It was a friend of a friend's picture and my friend had commented on it. The pic was of friend's friend, at the WTC site, with 2 of her friends, they'd got their arms round each other pulling knees bent, pouty poses.

Friend had commented something along the lines of 'glad you enjoyed NY, but this is seriously disrespectful'. Loads of other people had piled in telling friend to wind her neck in, it was a tourist site like any other

It wasn't the fact it was they'd take a pic of the WTC that upset my friend, it was the silly posing she found disrespectful, thousands of people had died there, it's not the Eiffel Tower

I went to New York in 2003. I visited the World Trade Center site whilst I was there. The pictures of the missing were still up and the ribbons were there too on chain link fences. I will never forget it. People were posing for photos and I found it so disrespectful. YANBU.

mmmuffins Mon 04-Mar-13 10:35:08

I think YABU about general photography. It is a site where something of historical importance happened, and it wont be there forever.

I do think it is a bit weird to have a group shot of you and your friends all smiling in front of ground zero though. Doesn't quite have the right sentiment.

Myliferocks Mon 04-Mar-13 10:42:15

I took photos when I went to Auschwitz.
I wasn't planning on doing so but when we got there it felt like the right thing to do.
None of my photos had people in and I didn't take photos of the gas chambers or where people had been shot by firing squad.
I took photos of the living quarters, the sign, the train tracks and the international memorial.
I had a feeling of peace as though the people murdered at the camps would have wanted what happened to be remembered.
It's quite hard to explain the feeling I felt whilst standing there.

Tee2072 Mon 04-Mar-13 11:10:26

"...the people murdered at the camps would have wanted what happened to be remembered."

I think that's a really good point. If people don't take pictures, don't keep records beyond the memorial itself, how do we make sure we remember?

Not that I think the WTC site or Auschwitz are going anywhere any time soon, but digital records may just be forever. Stone and brick and wood etc wear away over time.

CheddarGorgeous Mon 04-Mar-13 11:21:14

Sorry, no real opinion but thought I would say that visits to sites of death or destruction is called thano-tourism. There are some interesting studies on what motivates people to go and it's very different for different people.

ClaireDeTamble Mon 04-Mar-13 11:29:55

We went to Poland a few years ago with DH's family and visited Auschwitz.

DH's uncle spent the whole time taking photos and poncing around with his video camera. This wasn't too bad a Auschwitz 1 which is where the main museum bit is, although it felt a little bit distasteful as we were doing the walk through of the gas chamber and ovens.

However, when we went over to Auschwitz-Birkenau, they took us up into the guard tower above where the rail line went through the gate into the camp. There was a panoramic view of the site and the guide was pointing out where the chambers and ovens used to be - DH's uncle paractically shoved the guide out of the way so he could lean out the window and get a decent shot on his camcorder.

I was very angry. Not only was it incredibly disrespectful to the guide, but I really don't know why he was so keen to film it - the image of that place is indelibly stamped on my mind and I thought it would be much better to buy a book or DVD from the shop if you wanted something to remember the trip by.

I mean seriously, what's he going to do with the video - sit the grandkids down in front of it in a few years time and say "This was the family holiday when we visited a death camp - that's where they exterminated millions of people...."

However, I do think that the World Trade Centre Site is different. Auschwitz has been preserved as it was as a reminder to people about what happened, the WTC site has been turned into an active memorial and taking photos can be about rememberance rather than just ghoulishness.

Actually, I think the OP was right to complain about her H being asked to move along. That's rude. But otherwise - you (collective, hypothetical you') don't own a public place. You are not entitled to 'respect' from other members of the public visiting such a place to the extent that the most whiny and po-faced and self-important get to set the rules of behaviour and the most oversensitive get to trump everyone else's right to be there, take pictures, pull faces, have conversations.

And all this 'Well I don't take photographs because I'm so incredibly thenthitive that I don't need to' - what do you want, a cookie?

MorganMummy Mon 04-Mar-13 20:29:17

I'm not sure anyone wanted a cookie (though thank you so much for the offer, and the hilarious connection of speech impediment with sensitivity). I thought it was people really illustrating how cultural and personal differences meant there are many interpretations of what is appropriate and how they wish to remember something. And if you want to pull faces in a gas-chamber, I suppose you have the right to do it, but I have the right to think that's a rather odd behaviour.

MechanicalTheatre Mon 04-Mar-13 20:33:40

SGB, I really don't think the whiny and po-faced rule the world, but rather the brash and the crude.

And it has always been so.

<goes off to lisp in a corner and respect other people>

EverybodysSootyEyed Mon 04-Mar-13 20:44:40

I was there in 2003. They hadn't built anything at that point and it had fences around it. I didn't want to go and peer through the fence as other were doing and we walked past on our way to somewhere else. I was surprised at the number of people taking photos as if they were in front of the Eiffel tower or big Ben.

But then it surprises me when people have their photos taken sitting on someone famous gravestone.

With all these things it depends on the freshness. People go to Pompeii and gawp at the casts of dying people, the kids love seeing mummies at the zoo. At why point does a dead body/place with a tragic history become an artefact/attraction?

EverybodysSootyEyed Mon 04-Mar-13 20:46:13

I was there in 2003. They hadn't built anything at that point and it had fences around it. I didn't want to go and peer through the fence as other were doing and we walked past on our way to somewhere else. I was surprised at the number of people taking photos as if they were in front of the Eiffel tower or big Ben.

But then it surprises me when people have their photos taken sitting on someone famous gravestone.

With all these things it depends on the freshness. People go to Pompeii and gawp at the casts of dying people, the kids love seeing mummies at the museum. At what point does a dead body/place with a tragic history become an artefact/attraction?

chocolatesolveseverything Mon 04-Mar-13 20:50:54

Taking photos is not inherently disrespectful. On visits to the WTC site I couldn't bring myself to do it (was too busy crying for one thing), but the first time I visited Auschwitz I took one photo - just to remember the image that stuck in my head the most at the time.

But I cringe when I see people taking cheesy group shots at these places. I've seen it at famous war memorials as well and feel the same. I just can't see how posing with a big grin in front of a tragic site is an act of rememberence. I've tried, but just can't see it.

plantsitter Mon 04-Mar-13 20:52:16

I've worked with American people for years - in this country, which makes the difference between our culture and theirs look quite sharp.

Americans like taking group photos. And they smile in photos, whatever the photo is of. I think they get early training in how to look nice in photos. You could identify the British and Americans in our staff photos not just by our teeth but by whether or not we knew how to pose for a photograph.

I'm not being flippant and I really don't mean to offend anyone by what is of course a massive generalisation, but I'm just trying to say that I can see why you thought it was disrespectful but it will not have been meant like that. It's a cultural difference about the appropriateness photographing things and people.

Fingers crossed you're not American though...

SocialClimber Mon 04-Mar-13 21:05:25

I went to NY a few years ago, before there was any memorial. It was literally just a massive whole in the ground. The atmosphere was awful, it was like the day was still lingering.

There were people were taking photos there in a "look how cool this is" fashion. I had my camera around my neck throughout the day but took it off and put it away.

idiot55 Mon 04-Mar-13 21:27:41

I live in a town where a major disaster happened and I hate seeing people on what we call "a morbid tour" Bus tours even drive around the town.

Obviously family and friends visiting the site and memorial are differnt and I have the greatest respect for them visiting.

here people wnat to move on, and not hav ethe label of that town, yes it will always be respected but ..

MagratOfStolat Mon 04-Mar-13 22:37:03

There's just something about the idea of standing around looking happy when, all around you, death and tragedy are rife. It's something that I can't even put in to words, if you see what I mean. It just seems..........wrong somehow.

I've been to Auschwitz with a German relative of mine, and she was just as disgusted with everyone plastering on big false grins when they're standing on top of where people were shot. Pulling stupid jibs where the ovens were kept. One prize idiot decided to pull the "Heil Hitler" salute and I'm pretty sure was asked to leave because of it.

I don't see why people should make things like this into a happy, smiley place. They are there to commemorate the past, to warn future generations of the atrocities of man and to serve as a grim reminder that the most awful of tragedies can occur under our noses in the blink of a second.

If you feel it's appropriate to be posing cheesily for the camera, then that's your business, but to me it's just.... wrong somehow...

ICBINEG Mon 04-Mar-13 23:47:26

I had this in Nagasaki (at what I think it is correct to refer to as ground zero). Me and DH were just lost in the horror of it and a japanese woman came over and started cheerily asking if we were enjoying our visit to her country and did we like sushi etc etc. It was very difficult.

I guess if you walk past it everyday on the way to work you are desensitised.

EduCated Tue 05-Mar-13 00:11:22

SolidGoldBrass Did you really need to mock people with a lisp in an already pretty insensitive post?

Poppet48 Tue 05-Mar-13 11:28:27

YABU, It is an absolutely beautiful memorial to 911 and it has turned into a tourist attraction.

I'm sure if your DH said 'Hold on a moment, I lost a friend in 911 and I am just paying my respects' they would have been very understanding and moved somewhere else.

Xiaoxiong Tue 05-Mar-13 11:46:09

I'm surprised to hear some people find the term "ground zero" offensive. My uncle and aunt live in Battery Park City and call it ground zero, as do my cousins on UWS, aunt and uncle in DUMBO, etc. (We are many generations of New Yorkers). They complain about the hordes of people and the road closures and barge tourists out of the way in true NY fashion grin Because they walk past it every day it's not something they really think about anymore despite having lived through it and knowing people who died.

Frogman Tue 05-Mar-13 12:55:33

There is a difference between being in a photo and having a neutral look on your face compared to smiling and grinning and being disrespectful though. I think that is that issue.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now