Beyond belief. Really.

++ Important updates on this story here ++

There's a term in law known as 'Strict Liability'. This is official, formal legal shorthand for 'You know what? I really don't care why you were doing it, mate'. 

Strict Liability applies to offences like speeding. So, if you're caught breaking the speed limit, you can't just claim that you didn't know, or that you had to get home to see the end of X-Factor, or you were fleeing violent axe murderers. Speeding is speeding. You cannot exceed the limit for any reason.

Now, this might not seem too unreasonable, really. A bit crude, a bit simplistic, but you can sort of see where the legislators are comin' from, eh?

However, what happens when lazy or inept legislators, rushing to put together yet another knee-jerk set of laws, use this as their own little shortcut?

Paul Clarke of Reigate can tell you.

Mr Clarke found a discarded shotgun and - rather than blagging a bank, or shootin' up some boyz in da 'hood - decided that he should hand it in at the local police station.

After all, possession of an unlicensed firearm is an offence, innit?

Oh yes. It is. But, unfortunately for Paul, it's a 'Strict Liability' offence. Remember them? No excuses.

So, when Mr Clarke arrived at the local nick - having had the courtesy to 'phone ahead to announce his intention - was he offered a cup of tea and the thanks of several beaming Bobbies?

Was he fuck. He was promptly arrested, and thrown into a cell.

When the case came to court, was he given an apology for the misunderstanding and sent away, without a stain on his character?

Was he fuck. 'Strict Liability', see?

The judge, directing the Jury, sealed his fate, saying,

"This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.

The Jury, not really knowing what the fuck was going on, and probably slightly disappointed that this was not really like on the telly at all, took a scant 20 minutes to go along with the Judge's direction, and find the poor sod Guilty. Guilty. For fuck's sake.

So, will the judge now unravel this mess, and sentence Mr Clarke to something proportionate and tolerable: "you will be taken from this place and given a cup of tea and your cab fare home" ?

Will he fuck. He can't, even if he wants to.

There's a minimum sentence for the crime of possessing a firearm. A mere judge can't be trusted to know what's appropriate, so he's given guidelines from on high.

So - and here comes the sit down and brace yourself bit - when Paul Clarke is sentenced, on December the 11th, he must be sent to prison for a minimum of five years. Five fucking years. Five years in prison, for doing what pretty much every last single fucking one of us would have done in the circumstances.

What the flying, gibbering, fuckity fuck have we come to?

It's an over-worked phrase, but could you make this shit up? No, you fucking could not.

What kind of insane, kafka-esque fucking mess do we live in?

Really, really, really. What the fuck?

++UPDATE++  The reporter who was in court, speaks here. More facts begin to emerge.

++UPDATE++  The above was CF's most visited blogpost ever, and attracted huge volumes of criticism and comment. Some responses are here



increasinglymiffed said...

I read about this stupid case on another blog yesterday.

Perhaps this could be a cause celebre - something to kick up a stink over as an illustration of mad legislation - to get furious blogging and campaigning and noise about......

poor bastard.

Anonymous said...

Ridiculous, absolutely fucking ridiculous - just goes to prove the old adage that 'the law is an ass' ... poor sod is due some massive compensation

Captain Haddock said...

An absolutely and totally outrageous disgrace ..

And the Police wonder why the public are less than enthusiastic about coming forward to help them ..

I've always been a strong supporter of the Police (my younger brother is a copper) .. but after this and other recent cases like it, they can kiss my starboard testicle when it comes to assistance in future ..

countdruncula said...

Linky to sources, please.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a story from the Twilight zone...hope some good lawyer will help this poor least I know now that if I find a discarded gun, I'll leave it where it is, so someone else can commit suicide or shoot someone else. The law of this country is truly shite.

GoogleIsYourFriend said...

countdrunkula: don't you have fucking google where you live?

Constantly Furious said...

Link now, added for CountD

As well as the original story, here, tens of bloggers have picked it up overnight too.

Anonymous said...

"..for doing what pretty much every last single fucking one of us would have done in the circumstances."

Not any more, cunts.

Rob Farrington said...

Why did the CPS see fit to prosecute in the first place?

Why didn't the judge, after directing the jury to find him guilty (as he was technically, if in no way morally), add a remark like 'Of course, the jurors are not obliged to follow my directions', while giving them a meaningful stare? Unusual behaviour in a courtroom perhaps, but it's something I would have done if I'd been the judge.

Yes, the law is an ass, but that's only half the problem. The other half is that there are too many utter cunts in power who are happy to go along with this bullshit.

Ed P said...

This is a revenge action by Plod. 14 months ago this man was let off an assault charge (on a DVLA jobsworth) and they have been trying to get him ever since. He was, perhaps, a little unwise to (a) touch the gun (thus destroying any evidence of its use) & (b) not telling Plod why he wanted a meeting: just turning up and dropping the gun on the table was deliberately provocative.

countdruncula said...

Much obliged, CF. Note that I did not call your integrity into question, rather just asked for the exact source of your information - it's just standard practice really and provides extra context for the reader.

@GoogleIsYourFriend: thanks for that you utter, utter, cretin. Here is a website for patronising cunts, such as yourself, as a token of my appreciation.

Anonymous said...

That web page is actually aimed more at lazy cunts who ask for 'extra content' rather than doing a quick websearch.

Fidothedog said...

This country is utterly cunted.

John said...

Surely, if strict liability applies, and if logic is used, then the police officers who took possession of the gun in the police station are also guilty of the same offence! Like Paul Clark, they have no defence.

A pity the jury didn't ignore the judge's directions and return a not guilty verdict

Anonymous said...

This seems to imply that, when some scrote pulls a knife on you, do not under any circumstances attempt to disarm him. You would come into possession of the weapon and could go to jail for the minimum term for knife possession, which I think is also 5 years.

Benjamin Glass said...

Guys this issue is now trending on twitter so keep it going #PaulClarke

Big thanks to the blogger for posting this and allowing me to start the twitter campaign.

jaydoubleyou said...

Just because a judge directs a jury doesn't mean they have to do what he says, otherwise there's no point having a jury. Certainly when I did jury service earlier this year, on one of the trials we had an idea which way the judge wanted us to go, but made our own minds up (although we happened to agree with him).

Ally Farrell said...

This story is not only shocking, but genuinely disgusting. The phrase 'poor guy' is lower than an understatement in this case - what the fuck is he supposed to do?

Can Twitter have such an influence as to overturn his case?

John Self said...

I don't agree that what Clark did is what pretty much every one of us would have done. I'd have either ignored it and run away, or phoned the police and told them I'd seen a discarded firearm and said where it was. I wouldn't have touched it myself, let alone walked or drove to the police station with it.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I don't whether this happened on England or USA.

Anyway, that pretty much means to me the outlaws are ruling the country; for it's a blatant disregard for the contitutional laws (which are above common laws) and for the Spirit of Law (which is used to interpret what any law means).

Short of doing a revolution -- if Mr. Clark so much loves the country and wants to change it -- I'd pack my things and go for greener pastures where people are less stupid.

England (where the Police shoot the innocent) and USA (always ready to blow everyone up, and let God sort them out) are _not_ very good places. I suggest Canada or, maybe better, Australia.

Choose a place without a greedy culture.

Anonymous said...

This is beyond absurd. Why was this case brought ? There is such a thing as The Public Interest in whether the powers-that-be bring a case to court. Can anybody tell me how in any way the public interest is served ?

Anonymous said...

Are you sure this is true and there isnt more to this ? There is a defence to possesion of firearms/drugs etc precicely in the circumstances oiutlined here. There is clearly no mens rea so no crime. Otherwise as pointed out The cops would also be guilty as would the court officials who handled the firearm and indeed the judge if he took possession of it during the case. Strict liability does not mean under all circumstances and in fact if you were caught speeding fleeing for your life from axe murderes then you do have a defence. This story doesnt ring true at all Im afraid.

Oliver Kennett said...

Sorry to be a dick, but laws are the consiquence of wankers that decide to make our lives hell by removing our civil liberties, which in turn remove our civil liberties. Don't get me wrong, this is a screw up of the highest order but our legal system is the oldest in the world in terms of state defined law rather than religion based. If this dude doesn't get let off lets break him out. Come on, who wants to be a revolting! Oh, and I love the excessive use of the words Fuck and Cunt. I'm going to chuck in chuff nut to see how it pans out.

Von Spreuth. said...

It musrt ALSO be remembered that, as has been pointed out on othjer blogs, a Jury CAN tell the judge to go fuck himself up the arse sideways with a prickly pear plant wrapped in razor wire, and find the bastard not guilty any way, and there is FUCK all the guy in a wig and tights can fucking DO about it, excvept release the defendant.

But they do not inform you of THAT option on jury sevice briefings, DO they?

UNLESS; of course, the motherfucker, half blind, totaly fucking imbicilic, habitual public wanker, sheep shaging, Caledonian chuchter cunt, Incapability Browns mob have changed THAT as well.

Anonymous said...

same guy?

Jill said...

I was just about to say what Anonymous said: no mens rea, no crime. I'm sure strict liability doesn't interfere with that (although I'm no lawyer).

It looks a bit whiffy to me.

Robin said...

So, if you're caught breaking the speed limit, you can't just claim that you didn't know, or that you had to get home to see the end of X-Factor, or you were fleeing violent axe murderers.

Not true at all. There have been cases where people have been caught speeding (even being over the drink drive limit) and they've been let off because they were trying to get away from an attacker...

Stu said...

Sorry, I fail to see the problem with the judge's decision. Am I missing something, or did he go wandering round in public with a shotgun?

The correct thing to do would be to call the police and have a firearms officer come and collect the weapon. Not to go traipsing down to the local office and produce a shotgun in front of the startled receptionists with an Errol Flynn style flick of the wrist. I don't believe he called ahead and announced his intentions - if he had, whoever took the call would have told him to lave the gun in place while an officer came round to dispose of it properly. Walking round in public with unlicenced sawn-off shotguns is, erm, a crime.

Besides, what kind of idiot sees a shotgun in his garden - most likely disposed of by a criminal - and goes and _picks it up_? Has he really never heard of fingerprints?!

thatguy said...

Actually, there's more to this than is written here. Possessing a firearm isn't a strict liability offence; it is, however, an offence where the burden of proof is reversed (i.e. guilty until proven innocent) - If he (or his defence counsel) couldn't prove he had no intention to use it, he is guilty. The fact that he now faces jail is the result of shoddy defence, not a jumped-up legal system.

Constantly Furious said...


So, the guy's a bit of an 'idiot', as you say. You're probably right. He didn't do the right thing.

But do you really think that he should receive 5 years for that?

Don't Call Me Dave said...

Never underestimate the stupidity of jurors to come up with the wrong decision. I was on a jury last year. The defendant was as guilty as fuck but the other morons voted to acquit him because they liked the sound of his voice and didn’t want him to go to jail. The little matter of evidence didn’t seem to bother them.

S. Weasel said...

Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.

"The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."

Interpreted literally, this would imply that I'd get five years if you snuck a revolver in my handbag while I wasn't looking. No?

Julian McSweeney said...

Hang 'im!

Sam said...

Read before we all lose our heads completely.

Anonymous said...

I think your outrage is more absurd than the sentence. If I found a shotgun in my garden I wouldn't touch it. I'd call the police and have them come and deal with it.

You weren't there in court, you have no idea of the circumstances. You just like to get angry to show what a rebel you are. Why don't you get angry about real injustice, like poverty, or Darfur or something.

S. Weasel said...

Okay, Ewan, I read it.

Only someone who grew up with the notion of firearms as magical automatic bringers of evil would find that string of bullet points persuasive.

In the Sixties, an acquaintance and his best friend used to take the bus to target practice in Boston (US) carrying their rifles, their pockets jingling with ammunition.

Guns are not self-actuating mystical kill-sticks.

S. Weasel said...

Hm. And if the police had come for it, would they have detailed one officer for the weapon and another for the ammunition to make sure the two weren't carried through the town together? You know, so they couldn't come in contact with each other and kill somebody?

Anonymous said...

Tip, if you find a shotgun and intend to hand it in at the police station you should seriously consider shooting the attending officer and making a run for it!
Law and justice have become so disconnected it is ridiculous. The amount of justice you get depends on your bank balance and position in society.
If a police officer finds a gun in a raid is he then excused because he is qualified to find it?
I am so glad I never handed in the bloodied samurai sword I found in a waste bin in Corby

Anonymous said...

ANON 16:40

Well I for one wouldn't shed a tear if an obnoxious cunt like you was put inside for 5 years for breathing.

Anonymous said...

I don't think many people would claim what the guy did was sensible.

But to the snide cunt calling the angry reaction to the case 'absurd': the guy is getting a minimum of 5 years for handing a firearm back to Police.

No matter what daft way he chose to do that....5 fucking years!

I hardly think it takes a 'rebel' to find this situation very, very worrying you complete fucknut.

Anonymous said...

The five years bit is a tad extreme, but really, at what point would carrying a shotgun through a populated area seem like a good idea?

Why not phone the police and tell them it's in your garden,and get them to come and collect it?

The response may well be over the top, but to claim that the English legal system has gone to the dogs is reatarded.

Anonymous said...

We're at the fag-end of a Government that is now furiously trying to enshrine a littany of dubious policy in law before their power is finally taken from them next year.

The Police already failed to get a conviction of this man in a prior case.

Does none of this give a slightly different context to this case in your sheep-like noggin?

I give up.
Move on. Nothing to see here. Everything is fine with the legal system.

Mark Thompson said...

This does seem like a travesty CF. Your fury is well justified.

Did you know that there was another recent similar case where a man who found a gun with ammunition was told to take it to the police station!!??

Nothing like consistency eh?

DocRichard said...

be done for contempt of court _if_ i said that I think the Judge's decision here is contemptible?

DocRichard said...

There was a "Could" missing from the above. "Could I be done for contempt &c." Computers eh?

Anonymous said...

The FACTS are simple. This man VIOLATED the law. The LAW proscribes a minimum sentence. The jury did the RIGHT thing.

Joe Fonebone said...

Regarding the blanket statement that "You cannot exceed the limit for any reason." You may be interested to know that under extreme circumstances you can - Reading the comments above I don't appear to be alone in suspecting that there may be a little more to this incident than meets the eye....

Anonymous said...

Of course! It's the law!
It's always 'right' isn't it?
Got to be!

Give me strength...

Anonymous said...

i found some pistol ammunition in a garage i was cleaning out. they belonged to an ex-policeman relative who had died. i took them to the cop-shop, to be politely thanked for handing them in - and this was in Northern Ireland during the "troubles".
seems like common sense has fled the scene in England.

Ben said...

That an offense is of 'strict liability' does NOT mean that no defenses are possible. It simply means there is no mens rea to be established.

Offenses to which there is no defense possible are of 'absolute liability'.

That there is no mens rea element is surely not relevant. He clearly did intend to carry the firearm with him.

What you are arguing for is a defense that he was carrying the weapon for a good reason. That would never, ever be allowed for obvious public policy reasons. Everyone could carry a weapon and claim they were on their way to hand it in.

Ben said...

Perhaps I should add: you don't understand the law, you haven't considered the sound policy reasons for law, but at least you swore a lot.

Well done on being blindly angry. I hope it serves you well.

Anonymous said...


I work within the justice system, have a sound working knowledge of Criminal Law and am perfectly capable of understanding the reasoning behind strict liability offences thank you very much.

It doesn't make this (on the facts made public) seem any more equitable or reasonable.

As has been stated on other blogs failing the Police and CPS having an attack of common sense prior to it getting this far, a 'Perverse Verdict' would have been possible and would not have set relevant legal precedent.

Oh, and Fuck You, I suppose.

Mr Rob said...

I agree Ben.

I would, however, be interested in hearing your explanation as to why the prosecution of this man was in the public interest, a factor that the CPS are duty bound to consider before deciding to prosecute.

Andy Luke said...

Ex-army is he? Wondering if this broom handle and shotgun business might be related to some PTSD. Just a wonder.

Is there any possibility the arresting officer on the shotgun business, is this Chief Superintendent Adrian Harper? Ah right, the speeding metaphor. and

Ben said...

The original post made assertions about the law that are simply inaccurate. However, that's not the nub of the issue.

What I'm objecting to is the reflexive spewing out of the 'world is going to hell/everything is fucked up/you couldn't make it up!' narrative.

Firstly, I don't think the law is crazy. I don't think it was written by lazy or inept legislators. I think there are extremely sound policy reasons for the offense being one of strict liability.

Secondly, should he be prosecuted? It's impossible to judge because we don't have all the facts. There's an article but it's evidently written from one perspective (ie. that an upstanding citizen is, crazily, being locked away). As far as I know the story hasn't been reported anywhere else.

When something sounds 'beyond belief' that suggests that perhaps we shouldn't believe it. We should question. Why did the police arrest him? Why did the CPS think it in the public interest? From the article I don't know, but I don't think we should jump to the conclusion that it was incompetence or malice.

Ben said...

Oh, and anonymous? Thanks for saying fuck you in the politest way possible. Made me laugh.

Anonymous said...

Please publish the names and addresses of the judge and jury. I think that they should be sent the anonymous gift of an unlicensed fire arm.

Unknown said...

I feel for the guy, but I think the venom is directed at the wrong place. The police did what they were supposed to do (and yes, they could have turned a blind eye, but someone probably figured it would get sorted further downstream). The judge as you say doesn't have a choice in the matter, although technically there IS a defence to strict (rather than absolute) liability - its just that a guilty mind need not be proven. If those were the judges actual words then I'd guess there would be an appeal against procedure available. The jury actually CAN ignore what the judge says and find not guilty despite evidence to the contrary (google "perverse verdicts" or "jury nullification" - but this is not made clear to would be jurors and most haven't done law courses so its arguably not their fault for not knowing this (one of the many arguments for getting rid of juries which are a ridiculous waste of time and money).

In actual fact it's the Crown Prosecution Service - the CPS - who decide which cases to prosecute, and it is at this point where prosecution should have been found "not in the public interest" and abandoned.

After the Stockwell shooting they were taken to court (via a private and thus expensive prosecution) when they decided NOT to prosecute; I wonder if they could be taken to court for deciding TO prosecute despite the fact that doing so is not in the public interest - and thus forced to drop the prosecution? It's probably a moot point now Clarke has been convicted though.

Anonymous said...

Incredibly stupid. But there's an interesting opportunity.

Check the legal definition of "firearm". You may find it includes things like starters pistols, which fire only caps, and can be purchased and owned quite legally, with a minimum of paperwork.

Acquire a number of these. Next, place them in the gardens and yards of a number of judges and lawmakers. Finally, inform the police, and ensure that this particular legal precedent is brought up in every case.

Worth considering.

Bar Room Brawl said...

If the facts are as presented then it was clearly not in the public interest for the prosecution to proceed.

However, although the offence is one of strict liability and carries a minimum 5 year sentence, there is an escape route: if the judge finds that there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence of the defendant, he does not have to pass the 5 minimum term. In fact, he can pass any sentence he likes.

I would be very surprised if this defendant received 5 years.

Unknown said...

This is one of the craziest things i have heard.

While i have no legal experience, i would have thought that the police should not have handed this over to the crown prosecution, and that the CPS should not have brought this to court. I would have also thought that there can be exceptions, what guns ambesties, or about policemen or paramedics, or the public that remove guns from crime scenes. I myself once locked a gun in the safe of a pub i worked in after someone was stupid enough to pull it in the bar, and the local rugby team decided to take it off him and call the police.

I do feel sorry do the guy, but it makes me wonder if there is something not being said, like that he kept it for some time before handing it in, or wouldn't tell the police where or how it was found.

Jill said...

Oh, CF, you are SO popular! Enjoy it while it lasts!

Von Spreuth said...

Stu said...

Sorry, I fail to see the problem with the judge's decision. Am I missing something, or did he go wandering round in public with a shotgun?

The correct thing to do would be to call the police and have a firearms officer come and collect the weapon.

And how about the people on other blogs that have pointed out the times when they have rung the police to do JUST that, and have been told to "bring it in yourself, you lazy twat", or words to that effect?

And as THIS particular story goes, he DID ring the police to inform them of the fact he was willing to bvring it in. And, just to get a quickie tick in a box, they let him, knowing full damn well the cunts were going to arrest him when he got there.

Anonymous said...

At common law strict liability has a defense of honest and reasonable mistake, id suggest to this guy that he should appeal against the judges direction, as an inappropriate jury direction thus having the conviction overturned or at least a new trial.

If the offense is absolute liability, thats a different issue, imo consult a lawyer because this sounds very wrong and i'd bet that we don't have the whole story/facts/relevant law.

Anonymous said...

These were made famous as the "zero tolerance" rules in American schools. Which was totally crazy, since when I was in high school, they put an incredible amount of emphasis on critical thinking. "It isn't good enough to be smart, you have to know how to evaluate what you are presented."

So schools decided to carve themselves up an exception to critical thinking, because they couldn't make good rules, and they didn't want to be bothered with evaluating how a case might be unique.

Rules in one place often pass onto another. And it is unfortunate to see them actually pass onto government. Can't wait to see more of these zero tolerance laws.

Anonymous said...

Please note that this is in England.

Unknown said...

I guess by reading your blog, you support democracy, so stop bleating about it you fuck wit

Carps said...

What in the name of holy fuck is going on? I can't even formulate a reasonable comment here...

Anonymous said...

Best thing, it would seem, is NEVER to aid the police in any way whatsoever with anything....

If you see a shotgun leave it there for some nutter to find and rob a bank with.

It doesn't make sense for society but it might keep you out of the pokey!

Von Spreuth. said...

14 November 2009 16:02
Don't Call Me Dave said...

I was on a jury last year. The defendant was as guilty as fuck but the other morons voted to acquit him because they liked the sound of his voice and didn’t want him to go to jail. The little matter of evidence didn’t seem to bother them.

Then you should have reported your concerns to the clerk of the court. Or the prosecution solicitor, or whatever the protocol is nowdays.

One Furious American said...

So I guess the only thing he *could* have possibly done is to just leave the gun where it was and then called the cops and said "There's a shotgun at X location"

Though I'm sure there's some "Leaving a firearm unattended" law with a 5 year minimum sentence as well...

Desi Master said...

Wow... Excellent dear, great post!! there is so information on this blog, keep posting like this so that i can come

back every day for some new topic...
Live-Point Blog - Full of Entertainment
Thanks for sharing...

Anonymous said...

I am a criminal barrister. There appears to be a great deal of misunderstanding about this law. It really is not as idiotic as it may appear - honest! The judge was correct to direct the jury to convict as this is a "strict liability" offence - i.e. a person's reason for having the firearm is irrelevant. HOWEVER ... the minimum sentence is NOT obligatory. (For those interested see section 51A(2) of the Firearms Act 1968). In short the judge is not required to impose the minimum sentence if he/she takes the view that there are exceptional circumstances, in which case a lower sentence can be imposed. It appears that in this particular case an absolute discharge would be appropriate.

Anonymous said...

If he is not released, will be not only be "Kafkaesque" but irrational and insane.

Yet Another Geek said...

The guy has been an idiot but you are exaggerating the situation. Firstly, he did phone ahead to say that he was coming in to talk to the police but he did NOT mention the gun. The police only knew about the gun was he produced it inside the station.

Secondly, he is an ex-soldier which makes him more familiar than most with firearms law.

Now, answer these questions. What would have happened if he had been stopped for something on his way to the station? "I was on my way to hand it in. I just forgot to mention it on the phone. Honest". Would you believe that if you were on a jury? Can we really allow this so be used as a catch all excuse for anybody caught with a firearm?

Unknown said...


If he had gotten stopped by a cop on the street, then yeah, unfortunately he'd be screwed. That's why it was a little stupid to walk it in himself. But apparently he DID bring it in... so that's not the case at all, is it?

Constantly Furious said...

There are important updates on this story here.

Jack of Kent has done some great research this week, and put the mainstream media to shame.

We now know (a little) more...

Anonymous said...


P.s. if i get stabbed by a jack knife, do i qualify for possesion of an illegal weapon??

What a moron. We should put a gun in his hand and have him arrested for being stupid.

Anonymous said...

buy propecia online generic for propecia - cheap propecia forum

MH said...

I wish you much fun with my comments, perhaps this blog will be a great blog someday I hope, I really liked this part of the article, with a big and interesting topic has helped a lot of people who don't oppose things that people should know, thanks a lot.

El Taufan said...

Thanks for Sharing That... Sucses for You












yanmaneee said...

goyard bags
adidas yeezy
hermes birkin
supreme new york
nike air max 95
michael kors outlet store
outlet golden goose
jordan shoes
supreme clothing

yanmaneee said...

goyard handbags
yeezy shoes
golden goose
supreme outlet
adidas yeezy
goyard bags
golden goose outlet
yeezy supply