Are tourists in New Caledonia safer from terrorism than in metropolitan France? [closed]
I haven't heard about any recent terrorist attacks in New Caledonia (there was one back in 1988, but that had government members as hostages, as opposed to tourists or other ordinary bystanders). However, this could just be because it has a smaller population than metropolitan France, rather than a lower per capita risk of terrorism.
Reunion Island, a different French overseas territory, had a suspected terrorist wounding two police in April 2017.
The demographics of New Caledonia are somewhat but not greatly different from those of metropolitan France.
Is there information indicating that New Caledonia is safer for tourists with regards to terrorism than metropolitan France?
france safety new-caledonia
asked Aug 14 '16 at 13:30
Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm
12.3k971180
closed as primarily opinion-based by mts, Gagravarr, Nean Der Thal, JonathanReez♦, Berwyn Aug 14 '16 at 19:25
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
I haven't heard about any recent terrorist attacks in New Caledonia (there was one back in 1988, but that had government members as hostages, as opposed to tourists or other ordinary bystanders). However, this could just be because it has a smaller population than metropolitan France, rather than a lower per capita risk of terrorism.
Reunion Island, a different French overseas territory, had a suspected terrorist wounding two police in April 2017.
The demographics of New Caledonia are somewhat but not greatly different from those of metropolitan France.
Is there information indicating that New Caledonia is safer for tourists with regards to terrorism than metropolitan France?
france safety new-caledonia
asked Aug 14 '16 at 13:30
Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm
12.3k971180
closed as primarily opinion-based by mts, Gagravarr, Nean Der Thal, JonathanReez♦, Berwyn Aug 14 '16 at 19:25
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
1
Is this question regarded as offensive, paranoid, or poorly researched?
– Andrew Grimm
Aug 15 '16 at 13:12
1
The close reason states that it is primarily opinion based. Not that close reasons are always meaningful. But in this case it makes sense.
– hippietrail
Aug 20 '16 at 5:40
'The demographics of New Caledonia are somewhat but not greatly different from those of metropolitan France.' What? Can you source this? They look very different to me: cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nc.html cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html
– User632716
Apr 27 '17 at 17:22
@tompreston I looked again, and they still look somewhat but not greatly different.
– Andrew Grimm
Apr 28 '17 at 10:48
1
I guess that depends on your definition of "somewhat", but between 55-70% of the population in new caledonia are south east asian or pacific islanders, the overwhelming majority of people in france are european or north african. That seems very different to me.
– User632716
Apr 28 '17 at 13:49
add a comment |
I haven't heard about any recent terrorist attacks in New Caledonia (there was one back in 1988, but that had government members as hostages, as opposed to tourists or other ordinary bystanders). However, this could just be because it has a smaller population than metropolitan France, rather than a lower per capita risk of terrorism.
Reunion Island, a different French overseas territory, had a suspected terrorist wounding two police in April 2017.
The demographics of New Caledonia are somewhat but not greatly different from those of metropolitan France.
Is there information indicating that New Caledonia is safer for tourists with regards to terrorism than metropolitan France?
france safety new-caledonia
asked Aug 14 '16 at 13:30
Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm
12.3k971180
I haven't heard about any recent terrorist attacks in New Caledonia (there was one back in 1988, but that had government members as hostages, as opposed to tourists or other ordinary bystanders). However, this could just be because it has a smaller population than metropolitan France, rather than a lower per capita risk of terrorism.
Reunion Island, a different French overseas territory, had a suspected terrorist wounding two police in April 2017.
The demographics of New Caledonia are somewhat but not greatly different from those of metropolitan France.
Is there information indicating that New Caledonia is safer for tourists with regards to terrorism than metropolitan France?
france safety new-caledonia
france safety new-caledonia
asked Aug 14 '16 at 13:30
Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm
12.3k971180
asked Aug 14 '16 at 13:30
Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm
12.3k971180
edited Apr 27 '17 at 12:34
Andrew Grimm
asked Aug 14 '16 at 13:30
Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm
12.3k971180
asked Aug 14 '16 at 13:30
Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm
12.3k971180
asked Aug 14 '16 at 13:30
Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm
12.3k971180
12.3k971180
closed as primarily opinion-based by mts, Gagravarr, Nean Der Thal, JonathanReez♦, Berwyn Aug 14 '16 at 19:25
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as primarily opinion-based by mts, Gagravarr, Nean Der Thal, JonathanReez♦, Berwyn Aug 14 '16 at 19:25
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
1
Is this question regarded as offensive, paranoid, or poorly researched?
– Andrew Grimm
Aug 15 '16 at 13:12
1
The close reason states that it is primarily opinion based. Not that close reasons are always meaningful. But in this case it makes sense.
– hippietrail
Aug 20 '16 at 5:40
'The demographics of New Caledonia are somewhat but not greatly different from those of metropolitan France.' What? Can you source this? They look very different to me: cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nc.html cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html
– User632716
Apr 27 '17 at 17:22
@tompreston I looked again, and they still look somewhat but not greatly different.
– Andrew Grimm
Apr 28 '17 at 10:48
1
I guess that depends on your definition of "somewhat", but between 55-70% of the population in new caledonia are south east asian or pacific islanders, the overwhelming majority of people in france are european or north african. That seems very different to me.
– User632716
Apr 28 '17 at 13:49
add a comment |
1
Is this question regarded as offensive, paranoid, or poorly researched?
– Andrew Grimm
Aug 15 '16 at 13:12
1
The close reason states that it is primarily opinion based. Not that close reasons are always meaningful. But in this case it makes sense.
– hippietrail
Aug 20 '16 at 5:40
'The demographics of New Caledonia are somewhat but not greatly different from those of metropolitan France.' What? Can you source this? They look very different to me: cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nc.html cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html
– User632716
Apr 27 '17 at 17:22
@tompreston I looked again, and they still look somewhat but not greatly different.
– Andrew Grimm
Apr 28 '17 at 10:48
1
I guess that depends on your definition of "somewhat", but between 55-70% of the population in new caledonia are south east asian or pacific islanders, the overwhelming majority of people in france are european or north african. That seems very different to me.
– User632716
Apr 28 '17 at 13:49
1
1
Is this question regarded as offensive, paranoid, or poorly researched?
– Andrew Grimm
Aug 15 '16 at 13:12
Is this question regarded as offensive, paranoid, or poorly researched?
– Andrew Grimm
Aug 15 '16 at 13:12
1
1
The close reason states that it is primarily opinion based. Not that close reasons are always meaningful. But in this case it makes sense.
– hippietrail
Aug 20 '16 at 5:40
The close reason states that it is primarily opinion based. Not that close reasons are always meaningful. But in this case it makes sense.
– hippietrail
Aug 20 '16 at 5:40
'The demographics of New Caledonia are somewhat but not greatly different from those of metropolitan France.' What? Can you source this? They look very different to me: cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nc.html cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html
– User632716
Apr 27 '17 at 17:22
'The demographics of New Caledonia are somewhat but not greatly different from those of metropolitan France.' What? Can you source this? They look very different to me: cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nc.html cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html
– User632716
Apr 27 '17 at 17:22
@tompreston I looked again, and they still look somewhat but not greatly different.
– Andrew Grimm
Apr 28 '17 at 10:48
@tompreston I looked again, and they still look somewhat but not greatly different.
– Andrew Grimm
Apr 28 '17 at 10:48
1
1
I guess that depends on your definition of "somewhat", but between 55-70% of the population in new caledonia are south east asian or pacific islanders, the overwhelming majority of people in france are european or north african. That seems very different to me.
– User632716
Apr 28 '17 at 13:49
I guess that depends on your definition of "somewhat", but between 55-70% of the population in new caledonia are south east asian or pacific islanders, the overwhelming majority of people in france are european or north african. That seems very different to me.
– User632716
Apr 28 '17 at 13:49
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
As terrorism is crazy acts by crazy people, some designed and many rather random, you can not predict it.
There are parts of the world where it is more likely to run into terorism, but France nor New Caledonia is on the high risk list.
People going to a small island in safe Norway got killed by one person who handled in an unpredictable way.
That can happen anywhere in the world, so also in safe New Caledonia.
In Paris, where the risk of a terrorist attacks is more likely, there is safety in numbers. Even if many people suffer in an attack in Paris, the chances you are not involved are huge, it is very likely you will not even notice anything till services are stopped or police comes out on the streets in force.
Anyway, if you let terrorist dictate where you can or can not travel, they win. I will not let them win, so I have been in Paris and will travel to Paris again when the chance comes up.
answered Aug 14 '16 at 13:46
Willeke♦Willeke
31k1087163
That doesn't answer the question.
– vclaw
Aug 14 '16 at 16:21
It does in that it is impossible to calculate either set of risks, so that it is impossible to give a schale.
– Willeke♦
Aug 14 '16 at 17:39
3
Disingenuous. Terrorism cannot be predicted in Afghanistan or Iraq or Reykjavik. Your argument seems to suggest a tourist will be equally in danger from terrorist acts no matter which of those three destinations they choose for their next holiday.
– hippietrail
Aug 20 '16 at 5:44
@hippietrail The two destinations given in the question are both on a relative even level, not like Afganistan against Iceland. But I will add a few words to the answer.
– Willeke♦
Aug 20 '16 at 9:02
@hippietrail, I also feel there is a distinction between regularly reoccuring violence and terrorism where the attacks are like thunder under a clear sky, totally unpredictable. To me the question is asking about that last situation, not like visiting a country where there is war or has been a war which while officialy at peace, the warring parties are still commiting war actions.
– Willeke♦
Aug 20 '16 at 9:10
|
show 1 more comment
Yes and no
Yes, it is safer
Because New Caledonia is somehow independent. Combine with the fact that even France do not care for this remote island it makes NC an ultra-low priority target
No, no place is safe
Because the word of ISIS is like "Strike them in your neighborhood"
This means that if a guy living there feel like killing people for ISIS, he will kill people in New Caledonia. Even if it is meaningless on the big picture (he can't do anything on the big picture anyway)
answered Aug 14 '16 at 13:56
MadlozozMadlozoz
1,771817
Why was this answer downvoted?
– Andrew Grimm
Aug 14 '16 at 20:42
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
As terrorism is crazy acts by crazy people, some designed and many rather random, you can not predict it.
There are parts of the world where it is more likely to run into terorism, but France nor New Caledonia is on the high risk list.
People going to a small island in safe Norway got killed by one person who handled in an unpredictable way.
That can happen anywhere in the world, so also in safe New Caledonia.
In Paris, where the risk of a terrorist attacks is more likely, there is safety in numbers. Even if many people suffer in an attack in Paris, the chances you are not involved are huge, it is very likely you will not even notice anything till services are stopped or police comes out on the streets in force.
Anyway, if you let terrorist dictate where you can or can not travel, they win. I will not let them win, so I have been in Paris and will travel to Paris again when the chance comes up.
answered Aug 14 '16 at 13:46
Willeke♦Willeke
31k1087163
That doesn't answer the question.
– vclaw
Aug 14 '16 at 16:21
It does in that it is impossible to calculate either set of risks, so that it is impossible to give a schale.
– Willeke♦
Aug 14 '16 at 17:39
3
Disingenuous. Terrorism cannot be predicted in Afghanistan or Iraq or Reykjavik. Your argument seems to suggest a tourist will be equally in danger from terrorist acts no matter which of those three destinations they choose for their next holiday.
– hippietrail
Aug 20 '16 at 5:44
@hippietrail The two destinations given in the question are both on a relative even level, not like Afganistan against Iceland. But I will add a few words to the answer.
– Willeke♦
Aug 20 '16 at 9:02
@hippietrail, I also feel there is a distinction between regularly reoccuring violence and terrorism where the attacks are like thunder under a clear sky, totally unpredictable. To me the question is asking about that last situation, not like visiting a country where there is war or has been a war which while officialy at peace, the warring parties are still commiting war actions.
– Willeke♦
Aug 20 '16 at 9:10
|
show 1 more comment
As terrorism is crazy acts by crazy people, some designed and many rather random, you can not predict it.
There are parts of the world where it is more likely to run into terorism, but France nor New Caledonia is on the high risk list.
People going to a small island in safe Norway got killed by one person who handled in an unpredictable way.
That can happen anywhere in the world, so also in safe New Caledonia.
In Paris, where the risk of a terrorist attacks is more likely, there is safety in numbers. Even if many people suffer in an attack in Paris, the chances you are not involved are huge, it is very likely you will not even notice anything till services are stopped or police comes out on the streets in force.
Anyway, if you let terrorist dictate where you can or can not travel, they win. I will not let them win, so I have been in Paris and will travel to Paris again when the chance comes up.
answered Aug 14 '16 at 13:46
Willeke♦Willeke
31k1087163
That doesn't answer the question.
– vclaw
Aug 14 '16 at 16:21
It does in that it is impossible to calculate either set of risks, so that it is impossible to give a schale.
– Willeke♦
Aug 14 '16 at 17:39
3
Disingenuous. Terrorism cannot be predicted in Afghanistan or Iraq or Reykjavik. Your argument seems to suggest a tourist will be equally in danger from terrorist acts no matter which of those three destinations they choose for their next holiday.
– hippietrail
Aug 20 '16 at 5:44
@hippietrail The two destinations given in the question are both on a relative even level, not like Afganistan against Iceland. But I will add a few words to the answer.
– Willeke♦
Aug 20 '16 at 9:02
@hippietrail, I also feel there is a distinction between regularly reoccuring violence and terrorism where the attacks are like thunder under a clear sky, totally unpredictable. To me the question is asking about that last situation, not like visiting a country where there is war or has been a war which while officialy at peace, the warring parties are still commiting war actions.
– Willeke♦
Aug 20 '16 at 9:10
|
show 1 more comment
As terrorism is crazy acts by crazy people, some designed and many rather random, you can not predict it.
There are parts of the world where it is more likely to run into terorism, but France nor New Caledonia is on the high risk list.
People going to a small island in safe Norway got killed by one person who handled in an unpredictable way.
That can happen anywhere in the world, so also in safe New Caledonia.
In Paris, where the risk of a terrorist attacks is more likely, there is safety in numbers. Even if many people suffer in an attack in Paris, the chances you are not involved are huge, it is very likely you will not even notice anything till services are stopped or police comes out on the streets in force.
Anyway, if you let terrorist dictate where you can or can not travel, they win. I will not let them win, so I have been in Paris and will travel to Paris again when the chance comes up.
answered Aug 14 '16 at 13:46
Willeke♦Willeke
31k1087163
As terrorism is crazy acts by crazy people, some designed and many rather random, you can not predict it.
There are parts of the world where it is more likely to run into terorism, but France nor New Caledonia is on the high risk list.
People going to a small island in safe Norway got killed by one person who handled in an unpredictable way.
That can happen anywhere in the world, so also in safe New Caledonia.
In Paris, where the risk of a terrorist attacks is more likely, there is safety in numbers. Even if many people suffer in an attack in Paris, the chances you are not involved are huge, it is very likely you will not even notice anything till services are stopped or police comes out on the streets in force.
Anyway, if you let terrorist dictate where you can or can not travel, they win. I will not let them win, so I have been in Paris and will travel to Paris again when the chance comes up.
answered Aug 14 '16 at 13:46
Willeke♦Willeke
31k1087163
edited Aug 20 '16 at 9:25
answered Aug 14 '16 at 13:46
Willeke♦Willeke
31k1087163
answered Aug 14 '16 at 13:46
Willeke♦Willeke
31k1087163
answered Aug 14 '16 at 13:46
Willeke♦Willeke
31k1087163
31k1087163
That doesn't answer the question.
– vclaw
Aug 14 '16 at 16:21
It does in that it is impossible to calculate either set of risks, so that it is impossible to give a schale.
– Willeke♦
Aug 14 '16 at 17:39
3
Disingenuous. Terrorism cannot be predicted in Afghanistan or Iraq or Reykjavik. Your argument seems to suggest a tourist will be equally in danger from terrorist acts no matter which of those three destinations they choose for their next holiday.
– hippietrail
Aug 20 '16 at 5:44
@hippietrail The two destinations given in the question are both on a relative even level, not like Afganistan against Iceland. But I will add a few words to the answer.
– Willeke♦
Aug 20 '16 at 9:02
@hippietrail, I also feel there is a distinction between regularly reoccuring violence and terrorism where the attacks are like thunder under a clear sky, totally unpredictable. To me the question is asking about that last situation, not like visiting a country where there is war or has been a war which while officialy at peace, the warring parties are still commiting war actions.
– Willeke♦
Aug 20 '16 at 9:10
|
show 1 more comment
That doesn't answer the question.
– vclaw
Aug 14 '16 at 16:21
It does in that it is impossible to calculate either set of risks, so that it is impossible to give a schale.
– Willeke♦
Aug 14 '16 at 17:39
3
Disingenuous. Terrorism cannot be predicted in Afghanistan or Iraq or Reykjavik. Your argument seems to suggest a tourist will be equally in danger from terrorist acts no matter which of those three destinations they choose for their next holiday.
– hippietrail
Aug 20 '16 at 5:44
@hippietrail The two destinations given in the question are both on a relative even level, not like Afganistan against Iceland. But I will add a few words to the answer.
– Willeke♦
Aug 20 '16 at 9:02
@hippietrail, I also feel there is a distinction between regularly reoccuring violence and terrorism where the attacks are like thunder under a clear sky, totally unpredictable. To me the question is asking about that last situation, not like visiting a country where there is war or has been a war which while officialy at peace, the warring parties are still commiting war actions.
– Willeke♦
Aug 20 '16 at 9:10
That doesn't answer the question.
– vclaw
Aug 14 '16 at 16:21
That doesn't answer the question.
– vclaw
Aug 14 '16 at 16:21
It does in that it is impossible to calculate either set of risks, so that it is impossible to give a schale.
– Willeke♦
Aug 14 '16 at 17:39
It does in that it is impossible to calculate either set of risks, so that it is impossible to give a schale.
– Willeke♦
Aug 14 '16 at 17:39
3
3
Disingenuous. Terrorism cannot be predicted in Afghanistan or Iraq or Reykjavik. Your argument seems to suggest a tourist will be equally in danger from terrorist acts no matter which of those three destinations they choose for their next holiday.
– hippietrail
Aug 20 '16 at 5:44
Disingenuous. Terrorism cannot be predicted in Afghanistan or Iraq or Reykjavik. Your argument seems to suggest a tourist will be equally in danger from terrorist acts no matter which of those three destinations they choose for their next holiday.
– hippietrail
Aug 20 '16 at 5:44
@hippietrail The two destinations given in the question are both on a relative even level, not like Afganistan against Iceland. But I will add a few words to the answer.
– Willeke♦
Aug 20 '16 at 9:02
@hippietrail The two destinations given in the question are both on a relative even level, not like Afganistan against Iceland. But I will add a few words to the answer.
– Willeke♦
Aug 20 '16 at 9:02
@hippietrail, I also feel there is a distinction between regularly reoccuring violence and terrorism where the attacks are like thunder under a clear sky, totally unpredictable. To me the question is asking about that last situation, not like visiting a country where there is war or has been a war which while officialy at peace, the warring parties are still commiting war actions.
– Willeke♦
Aug 20 '16 at 9:10
@hippietrail, I also feel there is a distinction between regularly reoccuring violence and terrorism where the attacks are like thunder under a clear sky, totally unpredictable. To me the question is asking about that last situation, not like visiting a country where there is war or has been a war which while officialy at peace, the warring parties are still commiting war actions.
– Willeke♦
Aug 20 '16 at 9:10
|
show 1 more comment
Yes and no
Yes, it is safer
Because New Caledonia is somehow independent. Combine with the fact that even France do not care for this remote island it makes NC an ultra-low priority target
No, no place is safe
Because the word of ISIS is like "Strike them in your neighborhood"
This means that if a guy living there feel like killing people for ISIS, he will kill people in New Caledonia. Even if it is meaningless on the big picture (he can't do anything on the big picture anyway)
answered Aug 14 '16 at 13:56
MadlozozMadlozoz
1,771817
Why was this answer downvoted?
– Andrew Grimm
Aug 14 '16 at 20:42
add a comment |
Yes and no
Yes, it is safer
Because New Caledonia is somehow independent. Combine with the fact that even France do not care for this remote island it makes NC an ultra-low priority target
No, no place is safe
Because the word of ISIS is like "Strike them in your neighborhood"
This means that if a guy living there feel like killing people for ISIS, he will kill people in New Caledonia. Even if it is meaningless on the big picture (he can't do anything on the big picture anyway)
answered Aug 14 '16 at 13:56
MadlozozMadlozoz
1,771817
Why was this answer downvoted?
– Andrew Grimm
Aug 14 '16 at 20:42
add a comment |
Yes and no
Yes, it is safer
Because New Caledonia is somehow independent. Combine with the fact that even France do not care for this remote island it makes NC an ultra-low priority target
No, no place is safe
Because the word of ISIS is like "Strike them in your neighborhood"
This means that if a guy living there feel like killing people for ISIS, he will kill people in New Caledonia. Even if it is meaningless on the big picture (he can't do anything on the big picture anyway)
answered Aug 14 '16 at 13:56
MadlozozMadlozoz
1,771817
Yes and no
Yes, it is safer
Because New Caledonia is somehow independent. Combine with the fact that even France do not care for this remote island it makes NC an ultra-low priority target
No, no place is safe
Because the word of ISIS is like "Strike them in your neighborhood"
This means that if a guy living there feel like killing people for ISIS, he will kill people in New Caledonia. Even if it is meaningless on the big picture (he can't do anything on the big picture anyway)
answered Aug 14 '16 at 13:56
MadlozozMadlozoz
1,771817
edited Aug 14 '16 at 14:09
answered Aug 14 '16 at 13:56
MadlozozMadlozoz
1,771817
answered Aug 14 '16 at 13:56
MadlozozMadlozoz
1,771817
answered Aug 14 '16 at 13:56
MadlozozMadlozoz
1,771817
1,771817
Why was this answer downvoted?
– Andrew Grimm
Aug 14 '16 at 20:42
add a comment |
Why was this answer downvoted?
– Andrew Grimm
Aug 14 '16 at 20:42
Why was this answer downvoted?
– Andrew Grimm
Aug 14 '16 at 20:42
Why was this answer downvoted?
– Andrew Grimm
Aug 14 '16 at 20:42
add a comment |
1
Is this question regarded as offensive, paranoid, or poorly researched?
– Andrew Grimm
Aug 15 '16 at 13:12
1
The close reason states that it is primarily opinion based. Not that close reasons are always meaningful. But in this case it makes sense.
– hippietrail
Aug 20 '16 at 5:40
'The demographics of New Caledonia are somewhat but not greatly different from those of metropolitan France.' What? Can you source this? They look very different to me: cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nc.html cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html
– User632716
Apr 27 '17 at 17:22
@tompreston I looked again, and they still look somewhat but not greatly different.
– Andrew Grimm
Apr 28 '17 at 10:48
1
I guess that depends on your definition of "somewhat", but between 55-70% of the population in new caledonia are south east asian or pacific islanders, the overwhelming majority of people in france are european or north african. That seems very different to me.
– User632716
Apr 28 '17 at 13:49