Women in Combat - new direction from US SECDEF

#2
Fox News reporting that US SECDEF has instructed the military to lift the ban on women in combat (less exemptions to be granted IDC) by 2016. Where they lead, we tend to follow.....

Panetta opens combat roles to women | Fox News
Just keep the same tests as they are now and let anybody try to see if they pass. That WILL work. OH unless they change them to let others pass and when the shit hits the fan they lose the first female SEAL.
 

DangerMouse

Old-Salt
Moderator
#3
Here's the full US article, rather than a UK summary thereof:

Leon Panetta Lifts Ban On Women In Combat - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/leon-panetta-women-in-combat_n_2537575.html

WASHINGTON -- Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is lifting the military ban on women in combat, allowing them to officially serve on the front lines for the first time in the history of U.S. armed forces.

The policy change, to be announced Thursday at the Pentagon, "will initiate a process whereby the services will develop plans to implement this decision, which was made by the Secretary of Defense upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," a senior Defense Department official said Wednesday in a statement to The Huffington Post.

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, lauded the change. "After a decade of critical military service in hostile environments, women have demonstrated a wide range of capabilities in combat operations and we welcome this review," McKeon said in a statement Wednesday.

The Department of Defense notified members of Congress of the change on Wednesday afternoon, according to a congressional source who didn't want to be named because the policy is not yet officially announced. Following Thursday's announcement, Congress will have 30 days to weigh in on the decision. The military services will have until May 15 to inform Panetta of implementation plans, and until January 2016 to seek exemptions.

The military's official policy toward servicewomen, based on the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule, generally bars women from assignment to units below the brigade level when the units' primary mission is direct ground combat, according to Defense spokeswoman Eileen Lainez. The rule gives the services discretion to further restrict women from positions with physically demanding tasks, special operations, stationing or cohabitating with combat troops, or a lack of privacy.

Despite the ban, some women have been serving in combat for more than a decade. Often, though, their service is not officially recognized, which can obstruct professional advancement or access to benefits. Active-duty female personnel make up roughly 15 percent -- or 207,308 members -- of the more than 1.4 million armed forces, according to the Department of Defense.

Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, called Panetta's decision "welcome news."

"And coming so soon after the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, [it ] demonstrates another landmark victory for equality in our military," Tsongas said in a statement to The Huffington Post. “The announcement Secretary Panetta is expected to make tomorrow will put us on a path to giving women the same access to the protections and benefits afforded the men they serve alongside. It will finally acknowledge the reality of the current nature of war, where the lines between combat and support personnel are not clearly drawn. And, most importantly, it will help us build a stronger armed forces.”

Though the Defense Department opened 14,325 jobs to women in May, of the 1.2 million positions available throughout the military, some 237,854 -- roughly 19 percent -- remain closed to women. The decision to lift the combat exclusion policy moves the military far beyond earlier reforms, potentially opening hundreds of thousands of positions, including those in its most elite combat units.

Panetta had directed the services to update him by November with an evaluation of the reforms and "an assessment of the remaining barriers to full implementation of a gender-neutral assignment policy," a Defense spokeswoman said in November. Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Defense spokesman, said on Tuesday that those evaluations had been provided to Panetta.

"Rest assured, Secretary Panetta takes this issue very seriously and remains strongly committed to examining the expansion of roles for women in the U.S. military," Christensen said in a statement.

But the policy change is not likely to be without opposition. The Center for Military Readiness, an independent organization that focuses on military personnel policy, responded to the "situation" with an analysis and pledge to "call on members of Congress to provide diligent oversight that is authorized in the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.

"The last committee hearing on the subject occurred in the House in 1979, 33 years ago," the organization said in a statement. "It is long past time for the Obama Administration and Congress to pay women the compliment of taking this issue seriously."

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), a twice-deployed combat veteran, called the decision "overdue, yet welcome."

“Today is a historic day for not only women currently serving in our armed forces, but for all of the women who have selflessly put their lives on the line in theaters of war throughout our nation’s history," Gabbard said in a press release Wednesday.

Retired Army Brig. Gen. Rhonda Cornum, a Purple Heart recipient taken captive after her helicopter was shot down in Iraq in the Gulf War, told The Huffington Post she did not have much to say, other than: "It is about time."
So what about the British Army?

Just keep the same tests as they are now and let anybody try to see if they pass. That WILL work. OH unless they change them to let others pass and when the shit hits the fan they lose the first female SEAL.
We've heard these warnings before - it was the same siren calls about 'social experimentation' with ethnic minorities in the military, then with gays in the military, now with women. Senior infantry officers, speaking to the Joint Services Command and Staff College, have admitted that "there are no objective reasons to blocking women from the infantry - in due course (i.e. when we are eventually forced by parliament to end our restrictive practices) it will be apparent that it was more about emotion than reason".

Like the revealing-named 'old bloke' said, but said genuinely, and without the patronising sarcasm,

Just keep the same tests as they are now and let anybody try to see if they pass. That WILL work.
Yes, it will. There will be some bigots and misogynists to cleanse from the infantry on the way, but it will work.

For example, on 16 February 2001, the eve of his retirement as Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Charles Guthrie asserted that if politicians, ‘…put social engineering and equal opportunities in front of combat effectiveness, there is a real danger of damaging something that really works very well'. Citing General Guthrie's warning, Wildman observed that he was speaking for many, both within and outside the Services, who believed that ‘…the unique culture of the Armed Forces is being diluted to the detriment of operational effectiveness. Both changes in attitude to the employment of women and the acceptance of homosexuals within the Armed Forces have had a significant effect on military culture, especially with regard to openness, male domination and, some would argue, cohesion and efficiency.' General Guthrie commissioned in to the Welsh Guards in 1959. In 1959, Harold Macmillan held talks with Nikita Khrushchev, 20,000 demonstrators attend a CND rally in Trafalgar Square, Singapore was granted independence, Fidel Castro seized Havana, Charles De Gaulle was inaugurated as the first president of the French Fifth Republic, Buddy Holly was killed when his plane crashed, and a referendum in Switzerland rejected votes for women. Many things changed in the following four decades; the attitudes of Army officers were apparently not among them. How, in reality, have women fared?

Women in the Army - The British Army Review, Summer 2012

...women have been serving in increasingly demanding operational roles, embedded within the ground combat support and combat service support environment, including as fire support team commanders with the Royal Artillery, battlegroup engineers with the Royal Engineers, high threat bomb disposal officers with the Royal Logistic Corps, and attack helicopter pilots with the Army Air Corps. Women are also employed as female searchers, in military police mentoring roles, in human intelligence gathering activities, as linguists and interpreters and as combat medical technicians, indeed across every specialism less the infantry and the armoured corps.

In parallel, the roll of female heroism continues to grow. Three women from the Royal Army Medical Corps have been awarded the Military Cross: Private (now Corporal) Michelle Norris, for rescuing her vehicle commander while under fire in Iraq; Corporal Sarah Bushbye for assisting wounded colleagues in Afghanistan while under fire; and Lance Corporal Kylie Watson for her attempts to resuscitate a casualty for 20 minutes, as bullets smashed into the dust around them in a completely exposed position.

In addition to the wounded, there has also been personal sacrifice; Staff Sergeant Sharron Elliott of the Intelligence Corps was killed alongside 3 male soldiers in an attack on a Multi-National Forces boat patrol in Iraq. Second Lieutenant Joanne Yorke Dyer of the Intelligence Corps and Private Eleanor Dlugosz of the Royal Army Medical Corps were killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq, alongside 2 male soldiers and a local interpreter. Corporal Sarah Bryant of the Intelligence Corps died, alongside 2 male soldiers and a civil servant, when their vehicle hit a Taliban mine. And, most recently, Captain Lisa Head of The Royal Logistic Corps died from her wounds whilst defusing a daisy-chain of bombs.

There is clearly no shortage of serving female talent. Women are now broadly represented in Warrant Officers and Sergeants' messes. Female soldiers are being selected, on merit, as Regimental Sergeant Majors of Regular units and of their Branch or Corps, and many are successful too in commissioning from the ranks. These women are providing leadership to both male and female soldiers and acting as aspirational - and inspirational - role models for more junior females. Of particular note, the Royal Artillery now has its first female RSM; and she will also be their first female warrant officer awarded a commission. Most importantly, at 5.9%, the percentage of women progressing to warrant rank is not far short of the overall soldier male to female ratio.

Brig N P Moffat, Women in the Army, The British Army Review 154: Spring / Summer 2012 pp34-35.
 
#4
The argument, at least as I have understood it, has largely been moral and conceptual as much as physical. We must now have evidence of how the presence of females in contact has actually had an effect, if any, on their male counterparts.
 
#5
It's 2013 - time for equality. But not at the cost of effectiveness. I've never understood the point of having physical/fitness requirements that are deemed necessary for a job, then lowering the pass mark for women. If they can operate in the infantry with slower run times and less lifting ability, then why not let physically-weaker men pass at that level too?

I personally think that many women serving today are perfectly capable of serving in the infantry - the point is that you either need a certain level of fitness, or you don't, regardless of gender.

Any other reasons are smoke and mirrors.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
The argument, at least as I have understood it, has largely been moral and conceptual as much as physical. We must now have evidence of how the presence of females in contact has actually had an effect, if any, on their male counterparts.
Effective teeth arms require intense physicality, women will always be second class citizens in such an environment, nor can we afford to devote resources to uncover the very, very few who might be able to soldier in such units, and even then, only to an average standard. To which I would add, for the sake of those who wish to cry 'dinosaur', that any discussion of 'combat' is b0llocks - women are as brave as men and more than capable of pulling a trigger and hitting a target, but that skill alone does not an infantryman make and there is all the difference in the world between contacts in the course of doing something else and actively seeking out the enemy to kill him, and to do so whilst carrying heavy weights at speed over distance.

There is no value to the British Army in turning first class soldiers in one area into third class soldiers in another simply to fulfill a feminist wet dream and give politicians, who've already slashed at capability to a dangerous degree and are promising more, a warm fuzzy feeling that they've appeased a pack of right-on civvy retards who haven't a clue what's involved and whose qualifying standard is the ability to pull an f'ing trigger.

And... breathe...
 
#7
It's 2013 - time for equality. But not at the cost of effectiveness. I've never understood the point of having physical/fitness requirements that are deemed necessary for a job, then lowering the pass mark for women. If they can operate in the infantry with slower run times and less lifting ability, then why not let physically-weaker men pass at that level too?

I personally think that many women serving today are perfectly capable of serving in the infantry - the point is that you either need a certain level of fitness, or you don't, regardless of gender.

Any other reasons are smoke and mirrors.
Exactly. No objection of principle -- just don't drop the standards to make it possible.
 
#8
Effective teeth arms require intense physicality, women will always be second class citizens in such an environment, nor can we afford to devote resources to uncover the very, very few who might be able to soldier in such units, and even then, only to an average standard. To which I would add, for the sake of those who wish to cry 'dinosaur', that any discussion of 'combat' is b0llocks - women are as brave as men and more than capable of pulling a trigger and hitting a target, but that skill alone does not an infantryman make and there is all the difference in the world between contacts in the course of doing something else and actively seeking out the enemy to kill him whilst carrying heavy weights at speed over distance.

There is no value to the British Army in turning first class soldiers in one area into third class soldiers in another simply to fulfill a feminist wet dream and give politicians, who've already slashed at capability to a dangerous degree and are promising more, a warm fuzzy feeling that they've appeased a pack of right-on civvy retards who haven't a clue what's involved and whose qualifying standard is the ability to pull an f'ing trigger.

And... breathe...
I would not disagree with any of that. However..........
 

DangerMouse

Old-Salt
Moderator
#9
The argument, at least as I have understood it, has largely been moral and conceptual as much as physical. We must now have evidence of how the presence of females in contact has actually had an effect, if any, on their male counterparts.
It's 2013 - time for equality. But not at the cost of effectiveness. I've never understood the point of having physical/fitness requirements that are deemed necessary for a job, then lowering the pass mark for women. If they can operate in the infantry with slower run times and less lifting ability, then why not let physically-weaker men pass at that level too?

I personally think that many women serving today are perfectly capable of serving in the infantry - the point is that you either need a certain level of fitness, or you don't, regardless of gender.

Any other reasons are smoke and mirrors.
Exactly - well said. The MOD's excuses comprise nothing more than the bluster, gnashing of teeth, and wails of pained anguish from overgrown little boys desperate to maintain their exclusive male hegemony... It's going to be both singularly unattractive to watch, and damaging to the Army's corporate reputation at a time that we are already fighting for our reputation (redundancies, questions about service justice, new judicial review announced last week about prisoner abuse in Iraq, et al).

We've heard repetitive assertions over the decades about how ceasing the Army's traditional and often long-treasured disenfranchisement of "this" or "that" minority will supposedly "cripple combat effectiveness" - when put the the test, such arguments have been self-interested, bigoted navel-gazing by an insular minority merely seeking to preserve in aspic an archaic organisation.

This is the best the MOD can come up with. They are relying on a supine parliament not to force them to open up. How long will that last?...

29 Nov 2010 : Column WS113

Written Statements
Monday 29 November 2010

Armed Forces: Women in Combat

Statement

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): My honourable friend the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans (Andrew Robathan) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

In accordance with the requirements of the EC equal treatment directive, the Ministry of Defence has carried out a review of the current policy of excluding women from ground close-combat roles. The policy was last formally reviewed in 2002.

Considerably more direct evidence is available now than was the case when the previous review was carried out. However, the conclusions are mixed and do not provide the basis for a clear recommendation either way as to whether the current policy of excluding women from ground close-combat roles should be retained or rescinded.

The service chiefs' view is that women are fundamental to the operational effectiveness of the UK Armed Forces, bringing talent and skills across the board. Their capability in almost all areas is not in doubt, they win the highest decorations for valour, and they demonstrate that they are capable of acting independently and with great initiative. But these situations are not those typical of the small tactical teams in the combat arms which are required deliberately to close with and kill the enemy. The consequences of opening up these small tactical teams in close-combat roles to women are unknown. Other nations have very mixed experiences.

In the light of the inconclusive results of the research and the views of the service chiefs, I have concluded that a precautionary approach is necessary. Accordingly, the current policy of excluding women from ground close-combat roles while ensuring that the maximum numbers of trades are available to provide opportunity to those women who wish to serve their country will continue.

In parallel with this Statement, I am publishing a full report on the review, including the research that was carried out, on the department's website[/url].
Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101129-wms0001.htm
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
#10
Having female medics and the like attached to Infantry multiples in Afghanistan didn't seem to cause many issues and as long as they keep fitness standards the same for Infantry so all, male or female, have to achieve the same standards then I don't see why it couldn't work.

Although, I imagine there would be some problems to start off with such as if you had an all female platoon, where would you find suitably capable NCOs and Officers who would be willing to go and pass the required courses at Brecon (to the same standard as is required by the men obviously).
 
#11
I'm going to risk sounding crass but even ignoring weight carrying ability the issue of personal hygiene cannot be ignored. I've spent a tiny amount of time in Warrior and am aware of the latrine facilities, to be used when in a CBRN environment ( assuming the Coke tins have been removed. )

Any woman of child bearing age is going to have ( or rather, will impose on the other dismounts) pretty major issues one week out of four.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#12
Exactly - well said. The MOD's excuses comprise nothing more than the bluster, gnashing of teeth, and wails of pained anguish from overgrown little boys desperate to maintain their exclusive male hegemony... It's going to be both singularly unattractive to watch, and damaging to the Army's corporate reputation at a time that we are already fighting for our reputation (redundancies, questions about service justice, new judicial review announced last week about prisoner abuse in Iraq, et al).

We've heard repetitive assertions over the decades about how ceasing the Army's traditional and often long-treasured disenfranchisement of "this" or "that" minority will supposedly "cripple combat effectiveness" - when put the the test, such arguments have been self-interested, bigoted navel-gazing by an insular minority merely seeking to preserve in aspic an archaic organisation.

This is the best the MOD can come up with. They are relying on a supine parliament not to force them to open up. How long will that last?...
Have you any practical experience of mixed unit command and the issues involved or are you just venting?
 

DangerMouse

Old-Salt
Moderator
#13
Former_Fyrdman - I've read many of your posts in the past, and have almost always agreed with you. On this, however, I respectfully differ. In your posting, I have taken the liberty of swapping the word "women" with "homosexuals" and "feminist" with "gay rights". Guess what? Echoes of the late 1990's...

Effective teeth arms require intense physicality, homosexuals will always be second class citizens in such an environment, nor can we afford to devote resources to uncover the very, very few who might be able to soldier in such units, and even then, only to an average standard. To which I would add, for the sake of those who wish to cry 'dinosaur', that any discussion of 'combat' is b0llocks - homosexuals are as brave as men and more than capable of pulling a trigger and hitting a target, but that skill alone does not an infantryman make and there is all the difference in the world between contacts in the course of doing something else and actively seeking out the enemy to kill him, and to do so whilst carrying heavy weights at speed over distance.

There is no value to the British Army in turning first class soldiers in one area into third class soldiers in another simply to fulfill a gay rights wet dream and give politicians, who've already slashed at capability to a dangerous degree and are promising more, a warm fuzzy feeling that they've appeased a pack of right-on civvy retards who haven't a clue what's involved and whose qualifying standard is the ability to pull an f'ing trigger.
Well done - the 1950's are calling for you. This is where your attitudes lead, this is what your mindset causes:

The British Army over the last two decades: A litany of unlawful actions

1980's - Racism.

Throughout the 1980's '…existing sources of information indicated that racial harassment, discrimination and general racial intolerance existed in the Army [and] might be widespread, despite constant official denials that this was the case.' Analysis indicated that '54.1% of ethnic minority respondents stated that they had been the victims of racial discrimination… …89.8% of ethnic minorities thought there was racial discrimination in the Army…' and 'the Army's grievance procedure was not working.' As originally enacted the Race Relations Act 1976 allowed members of the armed forces to seek redress of complaints within the army's own procedures but not through industrial/employment tribunals – see Race Relations Act 1976 s.75(9). Because of the Army's incompetence in handling racial discrimination and racial harassment, that was changed by the Armed Forces Act 1996 s.23(2) with effect from 1997. Victims now have access to Employment Tribunals - and the Army has been forced to rectify its unlawful behaviour, under threat of judicial censure. (Sources: 'Race Relations', Hew Strachan, The British Army, Manpower and Society Into the Twenty-First Century, pp148-149, and Booley v MOD [2012] UKEAT 1821_11_1907 - Booley v British Army MOD (Practice and Procedure : Time for appealing) [2012] UKEAT 1821_11_1907 (19 July 2012))

Early 1990's - Sex discrimination.

In the early 1990's thousands of service personnel brought claims in Employment Tribunals based upon sex discrimination and pregnancy discrimination, and the MOD was forced to stopped breaking to the law, having fought the cases at immense cost to both the taxpayer and its integrity. The Independent, 1994: 'The MoD has already paid compensation to 1,929 of the 4,000 women who have lodged claims for sexual discrimination. The ministry is likely to lose about pounds £50M in all.' (Ex-Army major wins record £300,000 for sex discrimination: MoD likely to contest award to woman forced to leave over pregnancy - Ex-Army major wins record pounds 300,000 for sex discrimination: MoD likely to contest award to woman forced to leave over pregnancy - UK - News - The Independent)

Late 1990's - Homophobia and bigotry.

The MOD fought a bitter and costly battle to be able to both conduct intrusive Military Police investigations into service persons' sexuality, and to dismiss those found to be homosexual. The MOD's case rested on homophobia, bigotry and threats. The MOD's official submission to parliament included, as evidence, statements such as: “If a homosexual was on board he will have an accident waiting for him when no one is looking” p72, “The first homosexual to come out will get attacked or shot. It’s not fair to subject anyone to that violence” p72, “I would never serve in a unit where a known homosexual is serving and I like many others would quite happily smash their faces in if I found any in my unit” p73, “On a submarine or ship the gay would have nowhere to run” p77, “I would not give first aid to a homosexual under any circumstances” p137. The MOD lost, and its arguments were proven to be empty bigotry. (Source: Homosexual Policy Assessment Team report, MOD and BBC News, 'UK Gays win military legal battle, 27 Sep 99, BBC News | UK | Gays win military legal battle)

Early 2000's - Abuse in training establishments: the Deepcut deaths.

"The Review returns to the four young people whose…deaths are tragic. The untimely loss of their young lives to their families and loved ones shattering and painful still. Although the possibility of sacrifice and death in service must be ever present in the life of a soldier, as recognised in the Military Covenant, each of these deaths seems so unnecessary as to compound the grief of those they left behind. ... The Review is, nevertheless, convinced that their loss has not been without consequence. The deaths of these four young people have had profound impact on the Army as an institution and the thinking of its Generals. ... By their deaths, each of these young people have served to help protect others from harm and abuse. Their deaths will not be forgotten. Their lives have not been in vain." Sir Nicholas Blake QC, The Deepcut Review, A review of the circumstances surrounding the deaths of four soldiers at Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut between 1995 and 2002 p416, The Deepcut Review)


Were, from the 1980's onwards, knee-jerk arguments like your own accepted, the Army today would be a white, male, heterosexual bastion in which sexism, racism, homophobia, bigotry and bullying were rife. It is despite, not because, of people with those attitudes that the Army is not like that: the modern Army has many commendable attributes. It still has some way to go, though. If anyone in the Army wants to be in an organisation which makes up its own rules, answers only to itself, and rejects oversight and control from parliament from whom our authority derives (or, in your words, "a pack of right-on civvy retards", they resign, and join the Ku Klux Klan - there is no place for those attitudes in British society in the 21st century.
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
#15
I'm going to risk sounding crass but even ignoring weight carrying ability the issue of personal hygiene cannot be ignored. I've spent a tiny amount of time in Warrior and am aware of the latrine facilities, to be used when in a CBRN environment ( assuming the Coke tins have been removed. )

Any woman of child bearing age is going to have ( or rather, will impose on the other dismounts) pretty major issues one week out of four.
Providing you could recruit enough women to form female Plts then I couldn't see an issue but during the build up while the Army built up the numbers e.g. getting enough qualified vehicle commanders/drivers/gunners etc then there might be an issue.

How do the Engineers cope with women working as a member of vehicle crew?
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
I'm going to risk sounding crass but even ignoring weight carrying ability the issue of personal hygiene cannot be ignored. I've spent a tiny amount of time in Warrior and am aware of the latrine facilities, to be used when in a CBRN environment ( assuming the Coke tins have been removed. )

Any woman of child bearing age is going to have ( or rather, will impose on the other dismounts) pretty major issues one week out of four.
I never found that to be an issue - the women I served with were too professional. It's the mundane things like digging in quickly - it's either too slow or the blokes have to work disproportionately hard. I've never seen a mixed unit do a tank replen but again, it's not something you'd want a time delay on. As for track bashing...

Until I see a mixed rugby team representing England in the Six Nations, I sure as hell don't want to see a mixed infantry battalion represent my country in a war. Nothing against the girls, in the right role they're often better than the blokes and certainly just as brave, but they're not best used in the teeth arms where strength and endurance is a critical standard.
 
#17
There are plenty of females who can pass the physical tests. How this experiment will play out in a combat arena has yet to be fully explored.

The first candidates will need to be very physically fit, emotionally solid and mature beyond their years I feel, much more so than their equivalent male colleagues.
 
#19
Providing you could recruit enough women to form female Plts then I couldn't see an issue but during the build up while the Army built up the numbers e.g. getting enough qualified vehicle commanders/drivers/gunners etc then there might be an issue.

How do the Engineers cope with women working as a member of vehicle crew?
Why have female plts? If we're saying that they're up to the job, then they just get absorbed into sections. I suspect that the few women who would even want to be riflepersons (!) wouldn't have a problem with that. The blokes would, initially, but I suspect that as long as the females proved they were up to it, those problems would disappear faster than we think.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts