Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sun Nov 29, 2020 7:41 pm

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2020 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 46651
Location: 1066 Country
Following on from the viability of the trade thread,

How bad do we think it's going to get?

The question that must be on all our minds, and the minds of our families, is, is it safe for us to work?

And I don't mean from the thugs and thieves out there.

IMO it's not, but the dangers can be mitigated up to a point.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 46651
Location: 1066 Country
Found this article from the BBC very interesting, and parts of it weren't as doom and gloomy as many other articles.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979 ... respondent

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:47 pm
Posts: 14881
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
the main point is our government has decided we all need to catch it and recover from it to get this herd immunity but not all at once so self isolating now means catching it later

We also have customers who need to get to work or to and from the supermarket etc. so not working in my opinion is foolhardy it will damage your trade even further and may mean you are suffering from this later when the self isolation has stopped

As frightening as this disease is and I suspect I would probably be one of the ones ending up in intensive care not working just postpones the inevitable. Surviving it is a lottery but I doubt we can protect and prevent ourselves catching it

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 12:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 6568
edders23 wrote:
We also have customers who need to get to work or to and from the supermarket etc. so not working in my opinion is foolhardy it will damage your trade even further and may mean you are suffering from this later when the self isolation has stopped

Indeed, and until the government orders the trade to stop then some will no doubt keep going. But this will depend on each location.

Our trade here depends too much on golf and tourism, particularly in the middle six months of the year. And in the winter months it's mainly students and the university generally. Both have gone. I'm more reliant on the ranks and the night time economy in particular, and obviously that's gone as well. And I suspect the little work that's left (mainly daytime) will be even more skewed towards the phones than ranks than usual, so not good for me.

Quote:
As frightening as this disease is and I suspect I would probably be one of the ones ending up in intensive care not working just postpones the inevitable. Surviving it is a lottery but I doubt we can protect and prevent ourselves catching it

:shock: Well I'm assuming the opposite, and haven't really been worrying about catching it rather than the financial consequences of it all.

But if I was in your shoes it would be a whole different ball game [-o<

But it looks like there won't be any point in me working anyway, so from the personal perspective the danger of catching it while working may be academic anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 6568
Only people really questioning what's going on tend to be regarded as very right wing, so largely ignored or demonised.

This from Peter Hitchens is worth a read, though, although quite a long piece.

28,000 died from seasonal flu in England during winter of 2014/15 :-o

As I said, if you adjust China's death toll from Covid-19 to the population of England, then it equates to about 100, and they seem to be past the worst.

I don't doubt countries like Italy are having it worse, but maybe if we'd isolated particularly vulnerable groups, more targeted testing etc. But who am I to know? :-s


PETER HITCHENS: Is shutting down Britain – with unprecedented curbs on ancient liberties – REALLY the best answer?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... nswer.html

Our columnist is renowned for independent thinking. It will enrage many, but here he offers a highly controversial personal view

Some years ago I had the very good luck to fall into the hands of a totally useless doctor. It was hell, and nearly worse than that, but it taught me one of the most important lessons of my life. He was charming, grey-haired, smooth and beautifully dressed. He was standing in for my usual GP, a shabbier, more abrasive man.

I went to him with a troubling, persistent pain in a tender place. He prescribed an antibiotic. Days passed. It did not work. The pain grew worse. He declared that in that case I needed surgery, and the specialist to whom he sent me agreed with barely a glance. I was on the conveyor belt to the operating table.

In those days I believed, as so many do, in the medical profession. I was awed by their qualifications. Yet the prospect of a rather nasty operation filled me with gloom and doubt. As I waited miserably for the anaesthetist in the huge London hospital to which I had been sent, a new doctor appeared. I braced myself for another session of being asked ‘Does this hurt?’ and replying, between clenched teeth, that yes it blinking well did. But this third man was different. He did not ask me pointlessly if it hurt. He knew it did. He was, crucially, a thinking man who did not take for granted what he was told.

He looked at my notes. He actually read them, which I don’t think anyone else ever had. He swore under his breath. He hurried from the room, only to return shortly afterwards to say I should get dressed and go home. The operation was cancelled. All I needed was a different antibiotic, which he – there and then – prescribed and which cured the problem in three days. He was furious, and managed to convey tactfully that the original prescription had been incompetent and wrong.

The whole miserable business had been a dismal and frightening mistake. He was sorry. Heaven knows what would have happened if Providence had not brought that third doctor into the room. I still shudder slightly to think of it. But the point was this. A mere title, a white coat, a smooth manner, a winning way with long words and technical jargon, will never again be enough for me.

It never, ever does any harm to question decisions which you think are wrong. If they are right, then no harm will be done. They will be able to deal with your questions. If they are, in fact, wrong, you could save everyone a lot of trouble.

And so here I am, asking bluntly – is the closedown of the country the right answer to the coronavirus? I’ll be accused of undermining the NHS and threatening public health and all kinds of other conformist rubbish. But I ask you to join me, because if we have this wrong we have a great deal to lose.

I don’t just address this plea to my readers. I think my fellow journalists should ask the same questions. I think MPs of all parties should ask them when they are urged tomorrow to pass into law a frightening series of restrictions on ancient liberties and vast increases in police and state powers.

Did you know that the Government and Opposition had originally agreed that there would not even be a vote on these measures? Even Vladimir Putin might hesitate before doing anything so blatant. If there is no serious rebellion against this plan in the Commons, then I think we can commemorate tomorrow, March 23, 2020, as the day Parliament died. Yet, as far as I can see, the population cares more about running out of lavatory paper. Praise must go to David Davis and Chris Bryant, two MPs who have bravely challenged this measure.

It may also be the day our economy perished. The incessant coverage of health scares and supermarket panics has obscured the dire news coming each hour from the stock markets and the money exchanges. The wealth that should pay our pensions is shrivelling as share values fade and fall. The pound sterling has lost a huge part of its value. Governments all over the world are resorting to risky, frantic measures which make Jeremy Corbyn’s magic money tree look like sober, sound finance. Much of this has been made far worse by the general shutdown of the planet on the pretext of the coronavirus scare. However bad this virus is (and I will come to that), the feverish panic on the world’s trading floors is at least as bad.

And then there is the Johnson Government’s stumbling retreat from reason into fear. At first, Mr Johnson was true to himself and resisted wild demands to close down the country. But bit by bit he gave in.

The schools were to stay open. Now they are shutting, with miserable consequences for this year’s A-level cohort. Cafes and pubs were to be allowed to stay open, but now that is over. On this logic, shops and supermarkets must be next, with everyone forced to rely on overstrained delivery vans. And that will presumably be followed by hairdressers, dry cleaners and shoe repairers.

How long before we need passes to go out in the streets, as in any other banana republic? As for the grotesque, bullying powers to be created on Monday, I can only tell you that you will hate them like poison by the time they are imposed on you.

All the crudest weapons of despotism, the curfew, the presumption of guilt and the power of arbitrary arrest, are taking shape in the midst of what used to be a free country. And we, who like to boast of how calm we are in a crisis, seem to despise our ancient hard-bought freedom and actually want to rush into the warm, firm arms of Big Brother.

Imagine, police officers forcing you to be screened for a disease, and locking you up for 48 hours if you object. Is this China or Britain? Think how this power could be used against, literally, anybody.

The Bill also gives Ministers the authority to ban mass gatherings. It will enable police and public health workers to place restrictions on a person’s ‘movements and travel’, ‘activities’ and ‘contact with others’.

Many court cases will now take place via video-link, and if a coroner suspects someone has died of coronavirus there will be no inquest. They say this is temporary. They always do.

Well, is it justified? There is a document from a team at Imperial College in London which is being used to justify it. It warns of vast numbers of deaths if the country is not subjected to a medieval curfew.

But this is all speculation. It claims, in my view quite wrongly, that the coronavirus has ‘comparable lethality’ to the Spanish flu of 1918, which killed at least 17 million people and mainly attacked the young.

What can one say to this? In a pungent letter to The Times last week, a leading vet, Dick Sibley, cast doubt on the brilliance of the Imperial College scientists, saying that his heart sank when he learned they were advising the Government. Calling them a ‘team of doom-mongers’, he said their advice on the 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak ‘led to what I believe to be the unnecessary slaughter of millions of healthy cattle and sheep’ until they were overruled by the then Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King.

He added: ‘I hope that Boris Johnson, Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance show similar wisdom. They must ensure that measures are proportionate, balanced and practical.’

Avoidable deaths are tragic, but each year there are already many deaths, especially among the old, from complications of flu leading to pneumonia.

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) tells me that the number of flu cases and deaths due to flu-related complications in England alone averages 17,000 a year. This varies greatly each winter, ranging from 1,692 deaths last season (2018/19) to 28,330 deaths in 2014/15.

The DHSC notes that many of those who die from these diseases have underlying health conditions, as do almost all the victims of coronavirus so far, here and elsewhere. As the experienced and knowledgeable doctor who writes under the pseudonym ‘MD’ in the Left-wing magazine Private Eye wrote at the start of the panic: ‘In the winter of 2017-18, more than 50,000 excess deaths occurred in England and Wales, largely unnoticed.’

Nor is it just respiratory diseases that carry people off too soon. In the Government’s table of ‘deaths considered avoidable’, it lists 31,307 deaths from cardiovascular diseases in England and Wales for 2013, the last year for which they could give me figures.

This, largely the toll of unhealthy lifestyles, was out of a total of 114,740 ‘avoidable’ deaths in that year. To put all these figures in perspective, please note that every human being in the United Kingdom suffers from a fatal condition – being alive.

About 1,600 people die every day in the UK for one reason or another. A similar figure applies in Italy and a much larger one in China. The coronavirus deaths, while distressing and shocking, are not so numerous as to require the civilised world to shut down transport and commerce, nor to surrender centuries-old liberties in an afternoon.

We are warned of supposedly devastating death rates. But at least one expert, John Ioannidis, is not so sure. He is Professor of Medicine, of epidemiology and population health, of biomedical data science, and of statistics at Stanford University in California. He says the data are utterly unreliable because so many cases are going unrecorded.

He warns: ‘This evidence fiasco creates tremendous uncertainty about the risk of dying from Covid-19. Reported case fatality rates, like the official 3.4 per cent rate from the World Health Organisation, cause horror and are meaningless.’ In only one place – aboard the cruise ship Diamond Princess – has an entire closed community been available for study. And the death rate there – just one per cent – is distorted because so many of those aboard were elderly. The real rate, adjusted for a wide age range, could be as low as 0.05 per cent and as high as one per cent.

As Prof Ioannidis says: ‘That huge range markedly affects how severe the pandemic is and what should be done. A population-wide case fatality rate of 0.05 per cent is lower than seasonal influenza. If that is the true rate, locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies.’

Epidemic disasters have been predicted many times before and have not been anything like as bad as feared.

The former editor of The Times, Sir Simon Jenkins, recently listed these unfulfilled scares: bird flu did not kill the predicted millions in 1997. In 1999 it was Mad Cow Disease and its human variant, vCJD, which was predicted to kill half a million. Fewer than 200 in fact died from it in the UK.

The first Sars outbreak of 2003 was reported as having ‘a 25 per cent chance of killing tens of millions’ and being ‘worse than Aids’. In 2006, another bout of bird flu was declared ‘the first pandemic of the 21st Century’.

There were similar warnings in 2009, that swine flu could kill 65,000. It did not. The Council of Europe described the hyping of the 2009 pandemic as ‘one of the great medical scandals of the century’. Well, we shall no doubt see.

But while I see very little evidence of a pandemic, and much more of a PanicDemic, I can witness on my daily round the slow strangulation of dozens of small businesses near where I live and work, and the catastrophic collapse of a flourishing society, all these things brought on by a Government policy made out of fear and speculation rather than thought.

Much that is closing may never open again. The time lost to schoolchildren and university students – in debt for courses which have simply ceased to be taught – is irrecoverable, just as the jobs which are being wiped out will not reappear when the panic at last subsides.

We are told that we must emulate Italy or China, but there is no evidence that the flailing, despotic measures taken in these countries reduced the incidence of coronavirus. The most basic error in science is to assume that because B happens after A, that B was caused by A.

There may, just, be time to reconsider. I know that many of you long for some sort of coherent opposition to be voiced. The people who are paid to be the Opposition do not seem to wish to earn their rations, so it is up to the rest of us. I despair that so many in the commentariat and politics obediently accept what they are being told. I have lived long enough, and travelled far enough, to know that authority is often wrong and cannot always be trusted.

I also know that dissent at this time will bring me abuse and perhaps worse. But I am not saying this for fun, or to be ‘contrarian’ –that stupid word which suggests that you are picking an argument for fun. This is not fun.

This is our future, and if I did not lift my voice to speak up for it now, even if I do it quite alone, I should consider that I was not worthy to call myself English or British, or a journalist, and that my parents’ generation had wasted their time saving the freedom and prosperity which they handed on to me after a long and cruel struggle whose privations and griefs we can barely imagine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 6568
And while I have some sympathy for the Hitchens' view, I'm not so keen on the likes of this from Brendan O'Neill in the Spectator, who takes a 'freeborn Englishmen's right' approach to the pub closures.

If the pubs, clubs and restaurants have to close, and effectively close down the taxi trade as a consequence, then so be it.

But I'm just wondering if it's all a bit over the top, and if things could have been done differently :?


Boris’s pub ban makes this a dark day for Britain

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/bor ... or-britain

For surreal moments, this will take some beating: I’m in a pub watching the prime minister announce the closure of pubs.

It was my first instinct when I saw an online news report saying all pubs would be forced to close as of this evening: to leave my office and get into a pub. I need one more pub pint. I need one more pub memory to sustain me through the dark months of tragic home-boozing that lie ahead for all of us.

The first thing I saw when I arrived was a gaggle of tipsy blokes staring at a TV that had its volume cranked right up. Boris was solemnly announcing the regrettable cancellation of every freeborn Englishman’s right to go to the pub. I couldn’t tell if was being jokey or not. But no one in here is laughing.

The barmaid tells us she isn’t sure if they will close at 8 or 10 this evening. 'We are awaiting government instructions'. I can’t believe what I am hearing. I feel like I am in North Korea. British governments don’t close down pubs, right? Not pubs.

It is almost too depressing for words. I know that media people and luvvies for whom pubs are just places you go to for a hip gastro lunch consisting of overpriced dirty burgers will think this is over-the-top. Well, then they don’t know the centrality of the pub to life in this country.

Over the past week, as rumours grew of a government crackdown on public houses, I popped into the pubs near my flat a few times. I wanted to know who was still frequenting these places that have apparently become hotbeds of disease and destruction.

It was mostly old blokes, especially during the day. Men in their seventies, usually on their own, sat at a table with a pint and the newspaper. Widowers, perhaps, grateful for a couple of hours out of the house, amongst other people, in the world. It breaks my heart to wonder what will become of these people now.

Sure, young people and even not-so-young people have their Tik Tok chats and Google Hangouts and Instagram Stories. They’ll hold virtual parties, taking selfies of themselves enjoying tinnies as they chat online with their mates. Bully for you. What about the people who need — yes, need — that real, physical space of noise and clinking glasses and unexpected conversation that the pub provides?

Tomorrow, older people who haven’t seen this evening’s news will turn up to their local pubs and be confronted by signs saying: 'Shut down on the orders of the government.' If you’re okay with the sorrow and confusion that will grip those people who are just looking for a few hours of social connection, then you’re a stronger person than I am.

The pub is essential to so many people in this country. Forget, for a minute, the shiny, hip pubs frequented by millennials who will very easily shift to house parties following Boris’s mandated closure of every public house.

Think, instead, of those dark, dingy pubs with beer-hardened carpets frequented by elderly people with nothing else to do. Or those ever-so-slightly dangerous Irish pubs in which people not unlike my parents met, and in which people not unlike me may well have been conceived. Or those country-lane pubs in which the woman drinking at the bar will turn around and stare at you when you walk in — not because you’re a stranger, but because you’re a new person to talk to.

Britain without its pubs is not Britain. It just isn’t. It becomes something else. Something worse. Something less free, less convivial, less human.

Yes, we all know that Covid-19 is a serious disease and we all agree that huge amounts of government resources should be devoted to tackling it and treating those infected by it.

But to halt everyday life, even pub life, in response to it? We didn't do that during the far worse 1918 flu epidemic. Or during the Second World War. Or when the IRA was bombing actual pubs. We carried on. The pub continued. It had to. It’s the space where people meet and debate and fall in love and read their newspaper. As George Orwell said, forget the booze — though that is essential — what a pub really embodies is ‘atmosphere’.

It’s the atmosphere of liberty. The atmosphere of social connection. The atmosphere of life itself. In this pub, Boris has been switched off, music is blaring, and people are downing as many drinks as they can before — and I still can’t believe I’m saying this — pubs are forced to shut down. This is a dark day for the UK. Fight Covid-19, yes, but don’t kill freedom in the process. Now, back to my pint. Cheers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 46651
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
the main point is our government has decided we all need to catch it and recover from it to get this herd immunity but not all at once so self isolating now means catching it later

There is part of me that wants to get this bloody bug, have a week or so sweating and aching and then get back to some sort of personal normality. :sad:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 46651
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
I don't doubt countries like Italy are having it worse, but maybe if we'd isolated particularly vulnerable groups, more targeted testing etc. But who am I to know? :-s

Kind of think that's Boris's plan.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 46651
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
Our columnist is renowned for independent thinking. It will enrage many, but here he offers a highly controversial personal view

I read what he says, and he may be right.

If he is right then currently we are going back to 2008 with 450 Billion of debt/loans/grants being given out, and no extra deaths than we would seen without these financial and social measures.

If he is wrong, and Boris's route is correct, then we will go back to the 2008 levels of debt/etc, but many tens of thousands of people would have been saved.

Which route would any of us want the PM to take, financial and mass death risk, or gamble on neither?

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 6:56 pm
Posts: 2062
Sussex wrote:
Quote:
Our columnist is renowned for independent thinking. It will enrage many, but here he offers a highly controversial personal view

I read what he says, and he may be right.

If he is right then currently we are going back to 2008 with 450 Billion of debt/loans/grants being given out, and no extra deaths than we would seen without these financial and social measures.

If he is wrong, and Boris's route is correct, then we will go back to the 2008 levels of debt/etc, but many tens of thousands of people would have been saved.

Which route would any of us want the PM to take, financial and mass death risk, or gamble on neither?


I would not like to be in his shoes,he is making probably the biggest most important decision of his premiership,and I am not one of his supporters but his is making the best of a bad job,lot of the general public are not helping by ignoring his advice which is being given in the interests of us all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 9:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 8219
heathcote wrote:
Sussex wrote:
Quote:
Our columnist is renowned for independent thinking. It will enrage many, but here he offers a highly controversial personal view

I read what he says, and he may be right.

If he is right then currently we are going back to 2008 with 450 Billion of debt/loans/grants being given out, and no extra deaths than we would seen without these financial and social measures.

If he is wrong, and Boris's route is correct, then we will go back to the 2008 levels of debt/etc, but many tens of thousands of people would have been saved.

Which route would any of us want the PM to take, financial and mass death risk, or gamble on neither?


I would not like to be in his shoes,he is making probably the biggest most important decision of his premiership,and I am not one of his supporters but his is making the best of a bad job,lot of the general public are not helping by ignoring his advice which is being given in the interests of us all.

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:47 pm
Posts: 14881
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
you can't compare this to flu

even if flu figure he uses is correct and more recent years it is much lower the imperial college estimate is for 260000 to 500000 deaths which is 10 to 20 times worse if we took the attitude let it happen like flu

Every country in the world is putting their economies on hold. Had we let it go unchecked and allowed the economy to keep going then by now we would probably 10 to 20 times the number of cases and the NHS being unable to cope

For most flu strains there is a vaccine for this there isn't

We are in a similar situation to that faced in 1918 Spanish flu pandemic BUT with the advantage of 100 years of technological and scientific advancement


I now have some of my drivers choosing to self isolate and others taking the approach that lock down is fast approaching earn what you can before then.

In Spain taxi drivers were allowed to continue to work during the lock down but that doesn't follow here I am hoping we can still pick up care workers and elderly shoppers

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 46651
Location: 1066 Country
I think we will be needed to move NHS staff and equipment around, and get folks to and from the supermarkets.

I'm waiting to see what happens tonight following the PM's statement, but I'm defo looking at knocking it on the head for a while.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2020 8:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:06 pm
Posts: 22585
Location: A City near Birmingham
Sussex wrote:
Quote:
the main point is our government has decided we all need to catch it and recover from it to get this herd immunity but not all at once so self isolating now means catching it later

There is part of me that wants to get this bloody bug, have a week or so sweating and aching and then get back to some sort of personal normality. :sad:



or with one?

_________________
Freedom is never free


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2020 9:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:45 am
Posts: 9912
Location: Maldon, Essex.
Thoughts on this??


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group