Jump to content

Recommended Posts

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A thread concerning Britain's most notorious

> neo-fascist, QD posts approvingly about his videos

> as if they're true, complaining he never sees

> anything about it in the Guardian. QD gets pulled

> up on this and various other unpleasantness, such

> as calling Jews a a race. QD whines the thread has

> been hijacked. Excellent. Skin crawling casual

> racist misogynist.


Calling Jews a Race was simply a mistake. You have no credibility in my eyes as your mind is totally fixed and nothing will change your view. It's just frightening that you actually influence our next generation.


ONCE AGAIN back to the original subject and prod and smear and abuse as much as you want but I shall not respond to either you or RPC again so the stage is yours little Man.

Quia Differt Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > A thread concerning Britain's most notorious

> > neo-fascist, QD posts approvingly about his

> videos

> > as if they're true, complaining he never sees

> > anything about it in the Guardian. QD gets

> pulled

> > up on this and various other unpleasantness,

> such

> > as calling Jews a a race. QD whines the thread

> has

> > been hijacked. Excellent. Skin crawling casual

> > racist misogynist.

>

> Calling Jews a Race was simply a mistake. You have

> no credibility in my eyes as your mind is totally

> fixed and nothing will change your view. It's just

> frightening that you actually influence our next

> generation.

>

> ONCE AGAIN back to the original subject and prod

> and smear and abuse as much as you want but I

> shall not respond to either you or RPC again so

> the stage is yours little Man.


Very much back to the original subject, you spoke approvingly of the propaganda videos of Britain's most notorious neo-fascist, whom this thread concerns, complaining that the Guardian (amusingly misspelled, very witty, that did make me laugh - the first time I saw someone doing it in about 1975) didn't cover this apparent "truth". Was that "simply a mistake" as well?


Please feel free not to respond to me, the less you do the better. In fact, as you have previously been banned from this forum for being a skin crawling casual racist misogynist, and you don't live anywhere near East Dulwich, do you have any reason to be here at all except to troll and spout your poorly disguised racist claptrap?

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

RH....


> Very much back to the original subject, you spoke

> APPROVINGLY of the propaganda videos of Britain's

> most notorious neo-fascist, whom this thread

> concerns, complaining that the Guardian didn't cover this apparent "truth". Was

> that "simply a mistake" as well?


I made an error calling The Jews a Race and as soon as it was pointed out I accepted the mistake immediately.

Ever made a mistake ? ( apart from going into Teaching that is ? )


Now as we HAVE finally returned to the Subject I shall answer your point and ignore the usual frothing fascist nonsense because that is exactly what you are mein freund. Have a Whisky or something to calm you. I suggest "Teachers! "..I bet you haven't heard that one either, mon ami.


You will note the capitalisation below. Firstly this is what I ACTUALLY SAID :


" He knew the rules so on that basis it appears a fair cop.


INTERESTING to hear his address at The Oxford Union which is on You Tube particularly his videos of what is actually happening in his Hometown of Luton and also it shows the treatment Stacey Dooley, The BBC Reporter received when accompanying a Muslim March there which is also her Hometown."


Now I pray you don't teach our language as where does it say I APPROVE of what he said ? NOWHERE ! You simply LIED through your teeth Son.


Since when did saying something was "interesting" mean it's "approval?? ". YOU SIMPLY LIED.


In fact at no point did I say I approved of what he said . You simply INVENTED me saying that.


See rendell you make mistakes too though it wasn't a mistake just a blatant lie.


I DO approve of him showing videos of The BBC Reporter Stacey Dooley being verbally abused .


So perhaps YOU could answer a question or two now matey :


Have you actually seen these videos and, if so, what do you feel about the following ?


1/ How do you feel about the videos clearly showing the stoning of Black and White Families to force them out of the area?

2/ How do you feel about this Woman ( Stacey Dooley ) being clearly abused for her dress sense on the march?

3/ How do you feel about these Guys saying they ONLY obeyed Sharia Law and would disregard our Laws?

4/ Were these videos ever commented on in The Guardian then ?


The stage is yours mi amigo. I shall exeunt stage left as I will interested to hear how you intrepreted my comments about what he SAID as "approval" as well as your answers to the above or are you going to avoid the questions like you would like to avoid any meaningful Debate about it ?

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Quite happy not to have seen that one!


Hi Eduardo . I wondered when the final part of this UNholy Trinity was going to emerge.


I think you owe me an apology don't you Old Chap?


You said I got " caught out" implying that I tried to return here undetected from my first appearance. That was because Admin simply said "Untruth" when I said I put exactly the same E-Mail address. It transpired the ONLY difference was that I stated my my name , exactly like before, but with ".com" after my name instead of the suffix ".co.uk " so as you can plainly see no deception was attempted so I was not " caught out" at all.


What say you now ?

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 'the usual frothing fascist nonsense'? That's

> pretty rich.


Depends on your interpretation of fascist RPC.


It's characterized by forcible suppression of opposition. The "forcible" being in words not physical .


>

> 'Exeunt'. Thought so...as in Love Labours Lost: Exeunt.


As our Teaching friend finally returned to the subject I replied and shall eagerly await his ripostes

Exeunt is a plural and only used when more than one character leaves. Nothing funnier than seeing someone trying to be clever and failing miserably through ignorance - or are you referring to your split personality as a nice person (according to you) and a skin crawling casual-racist misogynist (according to those who've seen your previous incarnation)?


You described Robinson's propaganda as "his videos of what is actually happening in his Hometown of Luton." Clear affirmation of the fact that you believe them. No "allegedly" or any other qualifier, you've watched a video made by a proven neo-fascist and taken it as a true account of "what is actually happening". Your words.


Re the videos, the BBC video Robinson showed referred to people being subject to racial attacks. No mention of Islam or religion at all.


Re Stacey Dooley being abused, she was abused by a small number - a very small number - of stupid fanatics. Wrong? Definitely. Representative? No. Same for finding a few idiots who say they only obey Sharia law.


If you want to stir up hatred, it's very easy to find a few hotheads with ignorant bigotted opinions (I trust you recognise yourself) and make a video framed to make it look as though they represent the majority. The fact that you find such videos interesting and refer to their content as if it's clearly true speaks volumes.


There's a reason it hasn't been discussed in the Guardian or indeed other media outlets - it's because, unlike you, most people don't fall hook line and sinker for whatever biased manipulated rubbish is served up as truth in order to fuel hatred and confirm prejudice.

QD, the thing to remember when watching video is that it's edited. The process starts with a point of view or a message and the available footage is cut to support that. Even genuine reporting, whether it's for TV, print or radio, reflects the agenda or ideology of the organisation that produces it. It's rarely politically neutral.

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The same as I said before since you ask.

>

> Quia Differt Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > What say you now ?


So, for example you think originally putting "TonySebastianFarquharson.co.uk", for example, and the second time round

"TonySebastianFarquharson.. com" constitutes trying some form of deception and getting " caught out?".does it ?


:)

Quia Differt Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> edcam Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The same as I said before since you ask.

> >

> > Quia Differt Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > >

> > > What say you now ?

>

> So, for example you think originally putting

> "TonySebastianFarquharson.co.uk", for example, and

> the second time round

> "TonySebastianFarquharson.. com" constitutes

> trying some form of deception and getting " caught

> out?".does it ?

>

> :)


You're in danger of distracting from the main point of why people were laughing at you, which is that you have had to develop a new alias as previously you were banned from the forum for being a skin crawling casual-racist misogynist. I'm sure you'd like people to remember that.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> QD, the thing to remember when watching video is

> that it's edited. The process starts with a point

> of view or a message and the available footage is

> cut to support that. Even genuine reporting,

> whether it's for TV, print or radio, reflects the

> agenda or ideology of the organisation that

> produces it. It's rarely politically neutral.


You make a salient point RPC. You are right in saying that.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Exeunt is a plural and only used when more than

> one character leaves. Nothing funnier than seeing

> someone trying to be clever and failing miserably

> through ignorance -


Ah!1 You seem to have sobered up ! Excellent !


So you are a Grammar Nazi, as well as a mere run-of-the-mill Nazi who wants to stifle a debate ? You got the Double up. Well Done You. lol


or are you referring to your split personality as a nice person (according to

> you)


ONCE AGAIN where did I say that ? It's Another Lie isn't it rendell? ...If not kindly show me where I said that then, please?


"and a skin crawling casual-racist misogynist

> (according to those who've seen your previous

> incarnation)?...


What goes around Rendell, My Dear, comes around..


." according to THOSE" PLURAL.. The only reference to that was from Admin . SINGULAR NOT PLURAL...THOSE is only used when MORE THAN ONE CHARACTER IS SAYING IT.


Nothing funnier than seeing someone " hoist by their own petard" as Shakespeare would say which is funnier seeing that you picked me up on a stage direction often used in The Bard's Plays!


I thought you knew the difference between Singular and Plural ? Seems Not !!! :)


SHEER BLISS...How do you feel now ? :)


TALKING of "Approval" you BLATANTLY lied when you said I "APPROVED" of what he said adding the "neo-nazi attachment" for further effect. Nothing funnier than seeing someone be so weak that they can not admit to a blatant "untruth" when caught out so I ask you again ..Why did you say I approved of what he SAID where I have CLEARLY demonstrated I didn't ?


So was it a mistake or yet another lie from you then Rendell ?


I didn't bother with the rest of your "drivel"


Continually blatantly lying does you no favours at all mijn vriend..

Quia Differt Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------


> "and a skin crawling casual-racist misogynist

> > (according to those who've seen your previous

> > incarnation)?...

>

> What goes around Rendell, My Dear, comes

> around..

>

> ." according to THOSE" PLURAL.. The only reference

> to that was from Admin . SINGULAR NOT

> PLURAL...THOSE is only used when MORE THAN ONE

> CHARACTER IS SAYING IT.


"Those" referring to both Admin and those others who have seen your previous incarnation, including me, as your slithering unpleasant statements are still easily discoverable on this forum. Nice try, failed. You're neither witty enough nor clever enough to try that sort of thing, I'm afraid.

rendelharris:

>

> You're in danger of distracting from the main

> point of why people were laughing at you, which is

> that you have had to develop a new alias as

> previously you were banned from the forum for

> being a skin crawling casual-racist misogynist.

> I'm sure you'd like people to remember that.


Again you fail to differentiate between Singular and Plural. There was just ONE comment to that effect.

An opinion by someone referring to my comments many years ago. Just one person's opinion. Well this one person's opinion was that that comment was nonsense.


The fact that YOU and your sidekick have chosen to repeat that phrase over and over does not make it correct. It takes " sucking up" to a new low but it IS amusing so keep it up ! :)

OBVIOUSLY if I was banned I HAD to use another name but Admin are the important ones here not you and I made no attempt to change my name to them so stop talking nonsense.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Quia Differt Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > rendelharris Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

>

> > "and a skin crawling casual-racist misogynist

> > > (according to those who've seen your previous

> > > incarnation)?...

> >

> > What goes around Rendell, My Dear, comes

> > around..

> >

> > ." according to THOSE" PLURAL.. The only

> reference

> > to that was from Admin . SINGULAR NOT

> > PLURAL...THOSE is only used when MORE THAN ONE

> > CHARACTER IS SAYING IT.

>

> "Those" referring to both Admin and those others

> who have seen your previous incarnation, including

> me, as your slithering unpleasant statements are

> still easily discoverable on this forum. Nice

> try, failed. You're neither witty enough nor

> clever enough to try that sort of thing, I'm

> afraid.


You said "ACCORDING TO THOSE".....that CLEARLY suggests OTHERS have mentioned that was their opinion of me from before which no-one else has on here so AGAIN you are wrong.


Pathetically you have STILL not let us all know why you LIED about saying I "approved" of The Subjects views so why did you lie as you MUST know it was a lie because I only wrote 3/4 lines so it's easy to reference.


Again why the blatant lie rendelharris ?

Bored with your drivel now, there's a limit to how interesting it is watching someone make a fool of himself before it all just becomes rather pathetic. You've amply demonstrated what sort of person you are, I shall not be responding to any more of your leaden "wit" nor your spoon-sharp intellectual points. Farewell, skin crawling casual-racist misogynist.
QD, something I've wondered about since your first posts in your new name is that there's a sense that English may not be your first language. I'm asking from genuine interest as I realise it might make a difference to how people interpret your comments.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bored with your drivel now, there's a limit to how

> interesting it is watching someone make a fool of

> himself before it all just becomes rather

> pathetic. You've amply demonstrated what sort of

> person you are, I shall not be responding to any

> more of your leaden "wit" nor your spoon-sharp

> intellectual points. Farewell, skin crawling

> casual-racist misogynist.


I asked you at 2.44 not to acknowledge me so blame yourself and your myriad of replies since then.


Farewell O , what's the word rendel for someone who is incredibly rude and offensive, acts as a Grammar and Verbal Nazi, tries a smearing campaign and fails, then in desperation blatantly lies and then,pitifully, refuses 3 times to answer why he lied and now wants to disappear over the horizon with his tail between his legs ?


I do APOLOGISE though for not resorting to smearing or lying or name-calling or being rude or being ofensive ( well not too much ) but just remember to instil into your pupils your Mantra that :


1/ No-one should be given a second chance

2/ That they should automatically believe someone's opinion about someone from comments made years ago that they have not seen themselves without seeing any evidence

3/ That at all times they should attempt to stifle debate if someone has a different opinion

4/ Re-assure them if all else fails try to smear them and get them to enlist others to do the same

5/ Failing that just get them to lie through their teeth

6/ When called out on that get them to continually ignore the accusation

7/ Then if and when, sadly, the battle is lost get them to retreat over the horizon not to re-appear until the dust settles and most importantly of all and you MUST empthasise this rendel that whatever the situation they ignore all facts to the contrary of their beliefs and maintain a fixed and rigid view that they must not change UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES and then they can follow in your illustrious footsteps.


Farewell... :)

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> QD, something I've wondered about since your first

> posts in your new name is that there's a sense

> that English may not be your first language. I'm

> asking from genuine interest as I realise it might

> make a difference to how people interpret your

> comments.


Beautiful. I like that RPC. :)


You have got me thinking RPC. Who knows on a different forum on a different subject at a different time who knows where our banter could have taken us and what it might have lead to ?


Anyway your pesky brother rendel has finally gone so what you doing on the forum later ?

Could you teach me to write and talk proper has I do strugle wiv me engleesch sumtimes ?

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry, washing my hair.


Thank You for letting me down gently RPC.


btw: Would you mind awfully if I plagirised that " sense of that English may not be your first language. ? "


I can imagine you writing that with a sweet smile which is a happy note to end on...:)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...