Language

Apg29.Nu

Christer Åberg | TV | Bönesidan | Fråga Christer Åberg Ny! | Kommentarer | Chatt | Läsarmejl | Skriv | Media | Info | Sök
REKLAM:
Himlen TV7

Låtsasbanker

Den så kallade Ica-banken är ingen riktig bank och kommer aldrig att bli det heller. Det samma gäller för Coops motsvarighet.

Bankkort och dator.


Av CashOnly
måndag, 14 oktober 2019 19:09
Bok/Följetong

Banks load of responsibility when food stores are used as "branches". Trading forced angera banker without receiving compensation either for the increased risk or increased costs. The banks justify himself by bank branches will be safer that way. What they do not mention is that it is less safe for everyone else except the banks themselves. No other company is as selfish as banks. Bank office is far safer than the stores. In addition, bank robberies constituted only a fraction of the total wafers. A statement from 2011 showed that bank robberies accounted for only just over five percent of the robberies committed in shops and banks. Nowadays it is also cash handling as safe cash handling banks that in practice it is impossible to commit bank robbery.

The so-called Ica bank is not a real bank, and never will be either. The same goes for Coop counterpart.

They have no branches and "bank cases" were shot in the worst case only by Internet or telephone. Although IKEA has its own so-called banking. Both ICA and IKEA also issue their own credit cards. Examples of large Swedish companies get power over payment systems. Customers are sometimes almost beg to get enough cash, for example, Formica counters. It is also not to get money without cards.

The phenomenon that should be called pretending banks where, for example, insurance companies and big business chains operate as banks started after the financial crisis in the 90's when the credit industry was deregulated. The state bank guarantee was then also for these companies. This deregulation was that the other liberalizing the incorrect aim to increase competition. Competition instead of economic stability and order. Both ICA and Coop's card had initially no deposit insurance and was linked to the so-called savings banks. The cards could only be used in their own stores.

ICA Bank is headquartered in Solna, Sweden, and received the status of the bank in 2001. ICA board came in 1990. ICA Bank arrived at by ICA Customer simply changed its name to ICA Bank. It clearly shows Formica fixation on the card. Part of the activities of the ATMs. Ica cheated many customers from the scheduled banks by deposit ceiling of 15,000 was abolished and that higher interest rates. With Formica Debit Plus given discount on purchases and bills could be paid via the Internet with it. MedMera Bank acquired the status of the bank in 2007. The equivalent of Ica card called MedMera card and can also be used as a credit card.

There is a big disadvantage to companies other than banks granted the status of banks. They are often, if possible, even more than cashless cashless banks. When you differently is advertising for Internet banking, e -Proof of identification and pay bills on the Internet and you have a perverse effect. For example, point out how "easy it would be to get rid of the bills in the mail" when instead it is practical. Applied to the other in everyday life, it might sound like this.

"Imagine how convenient it would be to leave the car at home and walk to work instead"

(It's good and healthy to go to work but it's definitely not comfortable)

"Remember to avoid the uncomfortable dishwasher when you wash dishes by hand"

"Do not you also avoid the washing machine and wash with a wooden stick in the bathtub"

This is a linguistic and advertising-rate manipulation and a mild variant of the counterintuitive language of Orwell's novel 1984. To say that someone who is practical and convenient is inconvenient and impractical.

Fully backwards. Speaking of e-IDs that are used to much on the Internet as are those related to serious crimes. A number of leading businessmen were exposed to fraud in the millions when they used e-IDs from Telia with the Swedish Tax Agency and some companies.

No matter how better off many people get it is barskrapat bank account at the end of the month that comes. You can easily save at least a little bit of money each month, even for those who have the bad set. No matter how poor you are so you can put away $ 100 a month until a buffer on a small number of hundred dollars is to use. With this buffer need not be checked constantly how much is left in the account. Saving receipts and a simple cash book keeps track of if you went back. Choose a real bank and have a small buffer instead of constantly checking account in the Internet bank or the receipt from the ATM.

The banks that are most pretend they are clean cashless Internet banks. Regarding crime has been a shift from pure credit card crimes to offenses related to online banking. But it's usually not that the bank is exposed to crime. Nasty programs called Trojans can the carelessness infiltrate into the user's computer. They work in the background and sends the password to a computer server. Criminal need in this case not even concern themselves with fake credit cards. The crime can take place completely using computer automation but it also means that it is easier to find traces of it. But even in this case there are human so called goalkeepers in this case grants his account for criminal use.

It is often the credit card criminals who have gone on to do online banking crime. An example of a Trojan is A311 Death also called Haxdoor. Trojans spread by e-mail. Banking login page associated with the Trojan is so cleverly designed that no difference needs to be seen against the real. A much larger amount of money can be withdrawn from the account deceived in the purchase of any product on the Internet. Trojans are sold on the Internet and can be for a sum of money be tailored to suit a particular bank. All four major Swedish banks have been hit hard.

Select Handelsbanken. Boycott ATMs. It makes sense to change to Handelsbanken not only for individuals but also for businesses. The companies have given Swedbank and Nordea bottom rating, while Handelsbanken became the year's commercial bank. Worst ethical rating received another once the very cashless Danske Bank. I like both Denmark and the Danes, but the bank ought to throw back across the strait, or why not throw it in the strait. There is also a pretend bank.

(Speaking of Ica as did one day I found out that they started with a special contactless cards with which you can buy for less amount. Kontantlösheten conquer the land. It made me even more motivated and committed to write the book.)

Riksbank lie and give up control

Den enda bank som är hundra procent svensk är Riksbanken. På bankens hemsida kan man däremot läsa den kanske största lögn som har skrivits av något statligt svenskt.

"Riksbanken styr inte över hur mycket kontanter som används i samhället utan det styrs av allmänhetens efterfrågan."

Då borde denna bankernas bank ta sitt ansvar och genom åtgärder och regler se till att resten av bankerna och samhället tillåter allmänheten att bestämma hur mycket kontanter man vill använda. Rätten att använda kontanter är enligt en chefsjurist på Riksbanken "dispositiv snarare än absolut". Det innebär i praktiken på begriplig svenska följande. När det utanför affären står "inga kontanter" så har köparen ingått ett avtal om kontantlöshet när han handlar i butiken. Rätten att använda kontanter är alltså i praktiken helt tandlös.

The first had only Riksbank is responsible for cash management. In the 80s and 90s followed rationalization and efficiency (read impairments) which among other things resulted in the closure of the Governor's office. For some years existed a company for activities that would focus on profitability and cost savings. It was called Money in Sweden (PSAB). The company became a financial fiasco and was closed down in 2004. Then came the current deregulated system. The decisions on this deregulated system has its roots in the Executive Board. The Riksbank had now only a fraction of its previous data which was run by two offices in Tumba and Mölndal. It was decided in 2013 to move operations to a single office in Broby who only handle banknotes. Full coin management came to be run by a private company.

Under the Act, the Riksbank should "promote safe and efficient payments and responsible for the provision of euro notes and coins." Should we take it literally should instead Riksbank have written this book while I was able to "lie in the hammock." You wonder when we will get an equal share private central bank in Sweden and the US Federal Reserve?

More about the Riksbank's hypocrisy and contradictions

Other central banks than Swedish have the studies have shown that cash is one of the cheapest ways to pay for both individuals and businesses. In addition to electronic fraud is more than cash fraud. Security Transport Organization ESTA (European Security Transport Association) already showed several years ago that cash was the most popular and secure means of payment in Europe. ESTA ordered a study to address the banks and credit card companies who wanted to impose total kontantlöshet. It showed that the total kontantlöshet went against the will of the people and felt that people themselves could choose how they wanted to pay.

The Riksbank has chosen to focus most on infrastructure and technology instead of consumer protection. Consumer protection has instead been transferred to the kontantlösfanatiska FSA. Consumers therefore have practically no protection in terms of cash. It is as if the wolf had been instructed to seize Red Riding Hood's interests. Wolves have only their own interests in mind.

There are two important reasons to read on the Riksbank's website. First, you can learn about the monetary system by screening out purely objective and provable facts. Last but not least, one can clearly see how the Riksbank promotes the cashless options in front of the cash. Here one can find the largest hypocrisy in Swedish history. A very important example is that it's Riksbank and no one else who has decided to close down

kontantdepåer. Låt oss repetera Riksbankens påstående från förra avsnittet för att förtydliga bankens hycklande "neutralitet".

"Riksbanken styr inte över hur mycket kontanter som används i samhället utan det styrs av allmänhetens efterfrågan."

Den under alliansregeringen tillsatte riksbankschefen Stefan Ingves föreslog utan omsvep att avgifter på bankomatuttag skulle kunna minska kontantanvändningen i Sverige. Hur går det uttalandet ihop sig med den ovanstående neutraliteten? Han visade på att bankernas praxis i de andra nordiska länderna att bara ta ut uttagsavgift för automatuttag från andra än de egna kunderna hade minskat kontantanvändningen. Att behöva betala för att ta ut sina egna pengar är absurt. Det är förstås författarens och inte Ingves slutsats.

Ingves spoke often and willingly if CIT robberies doubled over a number of years but avoided also mentioning the grotesque ones achieved by credit and debit cards Internet fraud. Is it neutral? The Riksbank has over the years put forward the absurd opinion that the privatization of cash management has been designed to "stimulate greater competition and product development." Such thinking belongs in the business community and in no way one of society's most basic core functions. Should perhaps the fire engines at different fire stations to run to catch up to the fires, too? The station has time to first get paid while the others will be out of money. The fire engines tuned to the max.

Det kan nu vara på sin plats att gå djupare in på Riksbankens egentliga inställning genom att ordagrant citera från en uppsatsliknande skrift som är skriven av Björn Segendorf och Anna Wilbe som arbetar på bankens avdelning för finansiell stabilitet. Den heter 'Har kontanter någon framtid som lagligt betalningsmedel?'. Observera att författarna inte är några konsulter eller utomstående utan att det handlar om Riksbankens egen personal. Nu citaten.

"En slutsats av diskussionen är att en generellt bindande skyldighetför alla att acceptera kontanta betalningar inte torde främja ett säkert och effektivt betalningsväsende."

"Att avskaffa kontanternas status som lagligt betalningsmedel skulle ha två fördelar. För det första skulle lagstiftningen bättre återspegla verkligheten. Redan i dag råder i allt väsentligt frihet att träffa avtal och det finns därför i praktiken ingen tvingande skyldighet att acceptera kontanter För det andra skulle lagstiftningen inte längre, genom sin otydlighet, hindra marknadens aktörer att successivt anpassa sig efter marknaden och optimera sina kostnader för betalningar."

"På sikt är det rimligt att kontanternas unika status som lagligt betalningsmedel upphör."

"En uppenbar nackdel med att lagstadga om en bindande skyldighet att acceptera kontanter är att det innebär en inlåsning i en betalningsstandard som marknaden långsamt tycks vara på väg att överge."

"Against this background, we believe that measures to strengthen cash the status of legal tender did not favor the elaboration of a safe and efficient payment system."

End of quotes.

The underlines are made by the author to mark the Riksbank's frightening resemblance to an investment company or any other private operator in the industry. You write that the legislation should reflect reality.

The reality is that some studies have shown that as many as eight out of ten people want the cash management process will increase. Cash The legal status should instead be strengthened. The concept of "market" is in all circumstances as hard grabbed that kid's imaginary friends sitting in the empty chair in the playground. The market would logically mean consumers but the word represents, in practice, companies will.

Since most want cash management to increase one should listen to the majority. But it seems that the man with the "market" rather mean business. A central bank should not be like a private finance company. A central bank should have a profound social responsibility that the private sector can never live up to. Therefore, you should not use a language that belongs to the private sector. This kind of "lock-in" at the general acceptance of cash is the best thing that could happen Swedish monetary system.

For the sake of appearances gives the Bank has an option to give cash to mandatory legal status. But you can clearly see in the text which way it leans. Cash Legality can easily be eliminated by way of exception, contracts and agreements. Here is the Riksbank to safeguard the payment market. In addition to problems (not to be used) cash must be "so great and so affect

many people to market deteriorates' (in order to do something about it).

Det betyder i praktiken, för att göra en jämförelse, att om Ryssland anfaller Sverige så har det minsta länet ingen rätt att bli försvarat eftersom det inte påverkar tillräckligt många personer. Samhället försöker i övrigt med rätta skydda till exempel etniska minoriteter från till exempel rasism. Detta sker till exempel med polisinsatser och olika myndighetsåtgärder. Men detta gäller

tydligen inte "kontantminoriteten". I det här fallet är det Riksbanken själv som är "rasisten" eller om man vill den som bara står och glor när utlänningen slås blodig och faller till marken utan att ens ringa polis eller ambulans.

Riksbank itself says bluntly that it does not provide any protection for consumers and vulnerable groups (in terms of the use of cash). These groups are completely ignored by the dictatorial bank. They say that only a few to be able to pay cash there cashless option is not available. Despite earlier contradictory claim that there is public demand that control the amount of cash and not the Riksbank. How do you want it?

Something personal choice, there is no room for the Riksbank's mindset. It is more about those who do not have the right to open a bank account to use cash. Against these proposed since "targeted measures". The spirit of the document is that the cash is "outdated" and slows development when the problem logically instead should be about cashless option is dictatorial.

Ytterligare citat

"Marknadens aktörer , inklusive hushållen, har kostnader både för sin kontanthantering och för andra betalningssätt och bör därför själva kunna fatta affärsmässiga beslut om vilka betalningssätt att använda för just dem."

"Ur ett samhällsekonomiskt perspektiv tycks bankkort vara billigare än kontanter för betalningar överstigande 20 kronor." (bevis saknas alltså)

"Även om Riksbankens egna undersökningar tyder på att antalet kontantbetalningar sjunker är det svårt att säkerställa att så är fallet."

Man säger alltså att hushållen själva bör kunna fatta beslut om vilket betalningssätt de vill använda. Samtidigt sade man tidigare

contradiction that only certain groups should have the right to use cash. It's pretty much all that the Riksbank should decide what is commercial. Then people obey. The same principle as in dictatorships.

Uppsatsen genomsyras av ord och begrepp som affärsmässiga, marknadens aktörer, kostnadseffektiva och teknikneutrala. Inte en stavelse nämns om integritet och demokrati. Företräder Riksbanken folket eller den luddiga "marknaden"? Riksbanken har ända sedan 1600-talet haft nära anknytning till och styrts av riksdagen. Detta är politiskt unikt för Sverige. Regeringsformen säger att all offentlig makt i Sverige ska utgår från folket och att riksdagen är folket främsta företrädare. I mer än 150 år har kontanter varit lagliga betalningsmedel. Trots att man erkänner att det ser ut som om en stor majoritet av allmänheten ser kontantbetalningar som en rättighet så visar Riksbanken här tydligt vem som bestämmer.

There is also another essay that can be read on the Riksbank's website called 'Cash or card. How should we pay? '. It is also written by two employees at the Riksbank. The previously mentioned Segendorf and Thomas Jansson. This is not as important as reading the essay is unilaterally focused on costs. But some important there is to say about it. It takes lot of credit cards over cash by claiming that debit cards should be used more extensively to reduce costs. It is proposed to adopt "transparent and cost-based charges." This means in this context that the fine words suggesting fees on cash payments. The Riksbank recommends fully transparent pricing payments to account cards favor and propagate withdrawal fees for ATMs.

Sound research shows that cash is expensive. This has been the security industry. Logically would the argument be able to stay there. But it's important that show the Riksbank's overwrought search of the "optimal economy". It tries to show with graphs and tables on a threshold which claims that it pays to use credit cards. It has in some quarters claimed that 70 crowns would be the limit where it pays to use credit cards. The Riksbank also has elsewhere stated that this limit for debit cards would be at 20 crowns, while the corresponding value of the credit would be 450 crowns.

Perhaps the same method used in politics too? Anyone earning over 500,000 crowns before tax should vote for "Dick Dictator". Those who earn over this amount should vote for "Sture Prime Minister". "Dick Dictator" is always a bad option, regardless of the economy. Kontantlöshet is always a lousy alternative.

It is demonstrated that both cash and account-based (read cashless) payments have economies of scale. In purely economic terms, there is no objection to that claim. Much of the community is getting cheaper with increased amount. The problem is that by reducing the cash to the pain barrier removed their economies of scale. Talking about the cash that expensive is unfair in this context. Had it been half cash, half cashless payments had a proper comparison might have been done.

I andra länder som till exempel Ungern där det används mycket kontanter så är kostnaden för den genomsnittliga kontantbetalningen mycket låg. Man kan jämföra med bilar. Det blir

en avsevärt mycket högre milkostnad om man bara kör 50 mil med en bil per år jämfört med 1000 mil. Kontanter är fortfarande billigast. Men det är politiker, banker, kontokortsföretag, poliser, affärer och många vanliga lurade människor som har gjort att kontanternas konkurrenskraft minskat på grund av vad dessa sammanlagt gjort för kontokortsökningen.

The then Governor Ingves expressed in other contexts opinion that all payment should bear their own costs. It's easy to say when you have slain the cash management process so that it lost its economies of scale and proportion of fixed costs therefore increased strongly. He motivated the new deregulated private cash handling to banks earlier unreasonably exploited the government cash management only for the purpose of avoiding interest charges overnight. The banks, in practice, did not pay for the service they offered.

There are befog the criticism but one can only draw two conclusions. The private banks were highly irresponsible who used the system to the max. The Riksbank did not do enough about the situation because of incompetence, irresponsibility and unwillingness. Everything clearly shows that all types of banks (including the Riksbank) would reduce the cash. The private banks skinned then former state through excessive use of cash management. It is a great reason for claiming that the cash is not carrying its own costs. It is the banks' fault.

Finns det då något som tyder på att bankerna plötsligt skulle sluta utnyttja systemet på olika sätt vid kontantlösa alternativ. Nej inget alls. Det borde även Riksbanken förstå. Det tidigare oskäliga användandet av kontanthanteringen visar att man inte kan lita på att de privata bankerna tar sitt ansvar. Många pojkar växer upp och blir ansvarskännande vuxna män. Bankerna blir aldrig vuxna. De slutar aldrig att nalla ur kakburkarna.

I den tidigare nämnda uppsatsen påstås att en kortbetalning tar i genomsnitt 25 sekunder att genomföra medan en kontant dito tar 26 sekunder. Vad spelar den sekunden för roll? Vad är det för slags löjligt argument? Om handeln slutar tramsa med att prissätta en

product to 995 instead of sensible SEK 1000 so it saves a lot of time on now seconds so oerhärt important. The larger amount takes longer to pay in cash is of course a matter of course as more bills to be counted. It's good when the deal will not have small amounts.

This "lost seconds" is undoubtedly the most silly argument kontantlöshet I encountered during the work on the book. This is closely followed by the statement that six cents per hundred lost due to skimming at ATMs. Is there any more than I boggles at how bad argument kontantlösheten have? If a person takes out money via ATM every day of the year so the theoretical loss of SEK 22 due to skimming. Since kontantlösheten care so much about the pennies, it is a more accurate result 21.90. Oh how important it is to "pipe is the choir" and "Second Important Moment".

Let me instead tell you about the time that really matters. According to the Stockholm restaurateur Bengt Sörås takes it in his industry 35- 40 seconds to pay by card as a cash payment takes ten seconds. There is however a big difference. The queues would according to him be several hundred meters if everybody would pay by card. Many taverns and the like in the big cities accept only cash.

De tidigare nämnda 22 (förlåt 21,90) kronorna ska jämföras med de genomsnittliga 8000 i ren vinst som bankerna skinnar oss på varje år per person eller de enorma summor de tjänar på kontokorten. Vad jag önskar att man kunde vrida tillbaka tiden så att vi fortfarande fick lönekuvert med kontanter i handen. Då skulle jag inte ens ha ett bankkonto utan ha allt "i madrassen". I detta nostalgiska önskescenario borde företagen göra likandant. Bara ha pengar i sitt eget kassaskåp. Kanske gömma pengarna under badkaret hos föräldrarna som Bert Karlsson gjorde för länge sedan. Resultatet av detta vore att det inte skulle finnas några banker.

Vilken underbar och befriande tanke. Efter denna psykologiskt undergörande utvikning går vi nu tillbaka till ämnet.

What do you mean by that aforementioned second? Rush down the cashiers completely? Let the staff at the counters working in the right pace and not rush to death. Stop talking about seconds. The proposal to set uniform prices to streamline cash payments is as simple as revolutionary. A milk would have cost ten crowns evenly and not 9.90. A pair of headphones will cost 300 evenly and not 295. The disadvantage is well that some wretches in commerce die of shock when such a radical change may be too bold. Hope the ironic tone was clear in the text. Perhaps when cash payments beat the cashless several seconds just for that reason.

En sak man ofta inte tänker på är att affärerna har juridisk skyldighet att kontrollera flera saker vad gäller behörighet och giltighet vid köp med kontokort. Kortets utseende ska kontrolleras vad gäller hologram och logo. Kundens namnteckning och giltighetstiden på kortet ska kontrolleras. Vem gör i praktiken dessa kontroller? Dessutom ska eventuellt legitimation kontrolleras. Kontanter kräver aldrig någon legitimation och de är nästan ömöjliga att förfalska.

Skulle de juridiskt krävda kontrollerna följas till punkt och pricka vid kontokortsköp försvinner den där sekunden som en blixt och ersätts av en hel del sekunders förlust till kontokortens nackdel. Juridiken kräver ofta saker som i praktiken inte följs. Men bara en liten ökning av kontrollerna skulle göra att kontokortsköpen blev mycket långsammare än kontantköpen.

Sedan påstås i uppsatsen att kontanter används i för hög utsträckning. Genom ett överspänt skrivande om tröskelvärden och tidsåtgång uppbackat av ett matematiskt diagram "bevisas" att så är fallet. Man går så långt som att säga att kostnaden avgörs helt av tiden det tar att betala. Beräkningarna är så hårddragna att de gränsar till det paranormala eller kvasireligiösa. Man kan inte tjata nog om att Säkerhetsbranschen bevisat att kontantbetalningar är billigast. Men låt oss som tankelek säga att Riksbanken har rätt. Att det är billigare att betala med kontokort över ett visst värde.

Vad får konsumenterna för behållning av det? Tror man att restaurangerna skulle ändra sina menyer för en struntsumma? Skulle matvaruaffärerna ändra sina priser det minsta? Inte ens Riksbanken tror väl på något så löjeväckande. Verkligheten visar i stället ofta att åtgärder där mer pengar är inblandade inte ger någon nämnvärd effekt eller kanske ingen effekt alls. Momssänkningar till exempel. Företagen säger tack tack och sedan märker kunderna ingen nämnvärd skillnad. Ska man alltså sälja sin framtida frihet genom att använda kontokort för att spara en eller två kronor om dagen som i praktiken är ekonomisk inbillning?

At the end of this second essay shows Riksbank really his dictatorial PHIZ. It is proposed to "introduce a tax on a payment as a discount on another payment method." As can be understood from the context, this means in practice to charge for cash payments and subsidize the cashless option with the financial resources they received in the first. Just before the turn-this is a way to control the use of cash which it states that you should not do. If the Riksbank would be as neutral as it claims to be would completely stay out of the debate on the use of cash or credit cards.

It also proposes "subtle effects on behavior" (eng. Nudging) to account cards favor. This is nothing but pure brainwashing. Should such at all be proposed in a so-called democracy? Should Swedes brainwashed into some sort of "credit card camp" like that happens with the general approach to the regime of dictatorships? Sweden's population claimed the right to control the amount of cash in society is in fact nothing more than to let themselves be brainwashed by the Riksbank.

This, my dear Governor has no own choice or their own decision to make. National Bank prides itself on its "accurate forecasts." They should not even be called forecasts because everything is based on the Riksbank and its cashless ilk with an iron fist control the development of cashless direction. It is useless to make "forecasts" achieved through sheer manipulation of the population. These two papers was the last straw. I hereby declare the official Swedish democracy for being dead. The Riksbank's dictatorship must be citizens obviously know their place.

Riksbankschefen Stefan Ingves kom nummer två på magasinet Fokus lista över de hundra mäktigaste personerna i Sverige. Vad gäller makt är det en ganska realistisk placering av riksbankschefen. Frågan man i stället bör fråga sig är vem som egentligen har mest makt. Är det statsministern eller riksbankschefen? Men om vi i Sverige protesterar riktigt kraftfullt mot kontantlöshet och mot Riksbankens agerande kanske man känner sig tvingad att i alla fall tillfälligt tillsätta en riksbankschef som till skillnad mot Ingves drivs av förnuft och neutralitet.


Publicerades måndag, 14 oktober 2019 19:09:04 +0200 i kategorin och i ämnena:


1 kommentarer


x
Niklas
tisdag, 15 oktober 2019 00:01

Mycket bra skrivet Holger Nilsson det är mycket som är underligt när det gäller kontant hanteringen tiden visar klart och tydligt vart vi är på väg och att vi snart är framme.

Svara

Första gången du skriver måste ditt namn och mejl godkännas.


Kom ihåg mig?

Din kommentar kan deletas om den inte passar in på Apg29 vilket sidans grundare har ensam rätt att besluta om och som inte kan ifrågasättas. Exempelvis blir trollande, hat, förlöjligande, villoläror, pseudodebatt och olagligheter deletade och skribenten kan bli satt i modereringskön. Hittar du kommentarer som inte passar in – kontakta då Apg29.

Nyhetsbrevet - prenumerera gratis!


Senaste bönämnet på Bönesidan

fredag 17 januari 2020 22:02
Be att min förälskelse får upp ögonen för mig.

Senaste kommentarer


Aktuella artiklar



Stöd Apg29:

Mer info hur du kan stödja finner du här!

Kontakt:

MediaCreeper Creeper

↑ Upp