Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Sweet and welcome to CAG   Are you willing to disclose the employer in this case ?
    • I was the manager of an off license. We reopened on mon 30th, and I received a very large delivery which we weren’t expecting (and I wasn’t told about until 2hrs before by my line manager) all managers received a text from regional manager which stated when deliveries are coming in shops are to be closed. He didn’t ring this info in, I just read the text. When I saw how big del was (completely covered the floor, could barely move around it) I kept my shutters closed and proceeded to pack delivery away. The store remained closed and we lost 5hrs trading time. I didn’t seek permission from manager to do this, with the current safety precautions enacted (only allowed 1 customer in at a time as manadated by HQ) I didn’t feel this could be safely achieved with 3 members of staff in and all the stock everywhere.    anyway, regional manger calls into shop at 4:50, hits roof that it’s closed and storms out of shop after exclaiming I didn’t have the authority to keep shop closed. Fast forward 1 1/2 weeks later today regional manager comes in at 4pm with prepared questions, I answer truthfully and state I didn’t think it was safe and I had the best interests of business at heart and that I had turned up for work every day since this incident and nothing had been said. He said that they will examine this information and can come back for more evidence if needed. He goes away again and at 5:59 (my shift finished at 6) he came back in saying they’d examined all the evidence and that their decision was dismissal, I was to gather my things and there’d be a letter in the post with information should I wish to appeal.    quite a shock. Anyway, I will see what this letter states as their reasons I committed gross misconduct, I am a bit at a loss as to what I specifically did to be deemed gross misconduct. I’ve worked for them for 10years, taken 2 days off sick in that entire time and had a faultless record so I’m just flabbergasted they’d immediately sack me for something which happened in unprecedented times when all I was trying to do was keep myself and my staff safe and safely make their store presentable and adequately accessible for all. Any thoughts on the above? Obviously this is all too fresh as it happened only hours ago 
    • Hi KL1 and welcome to CAG.   You say the buyer contacted you saying, "...... he had seen it cheaper somewhere else and wanted to cancel the sale."   Do you have this in writing and, if so, in what format ?   It would be useful if you could tell us more about the item you sold.    
    • I wanted to report a success against UKPS that started in Dec 2018 and was concluded today.  I did do a bit of reading through this site for guidance though so thanks for that!    in Dec 2018 a family member reversed onto a private road in Coventry and waited about 1 minute or so to collect their partner.  Meanwhile the owner was loitering and waiting to catch anyone on his land with photos.  2 photos were taken about 40 seconds apart.   With my help I disputed the charge stating that the driver had not "parked" but had only stopped momentarily to pick up a passenger.  I did not state at any point who the driver was.   UKPS from Leamington Spa were trying to enforce this and insisted on the charge of £60 + £100 being paid.  I sent a 2nd letter confirming the position of the 1st letter and that no further letters would be sent.   4 threatening letters were sent from Debt Recovery Plus and Zenith Collections and duly ignored.  The last kindly offered to settle for £136!    Then a letter from Gladstones Sols threatening the same was also sent, and mentioned Beavis vs Parking Eye.  This was also duly ignored.   Finally a Letter Before Action was sent by email.  Aha!  Game on.  They cited Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Nick Idle and Vehicle Control Services Limited v Damen Ward and that stopping for any time is a breach, and it was only the length of time stopped that may affect the value of the breach.   I said that signage said no PARKING, not no STOPPING and that appropriate case law was JOPSON v HOMEGUARD where the judge specifically said "Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it"   They then came back at me with an evidence bundle they were allegedly going to use at court against me, stated the signage was clear,  a nd repeated their "no stopping" case   I came back at them with the same as before and added that, in their world, someone coming onto the land and wanting to read the signage would have precisely NO TIME AT ALL to so as, according to them, even stopping for mere seconds was a breach.  I also threatened that I would claim costs for my wasted time in dealing the case.   Today they emailed me as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good Morning,   Thank you for your correspondence. We apologise for the delay in our response, however as no further action has taken place we trust you agree no prejudice has been suffered.   Please note that our Client has cancelled our instruction on this matter and the matter is considered closed.   No further action is warranted. Kind Regards ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   16 months on and UKPS gave in  
    • Hi JGS,   Yes, as LED lights, they should last 10,000 hours or more normally, maybe up to 20,000+.   If you bought 2 lights one day and 2 more the next and one has failed, you have a good argument to have a replacement for the failed one (not available), or a new set of 4 similar lights
  • Our picks

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

Says the person who self-admittedly NEVER voted Labour before Corbyn

 

Yes because I agreed with the majority of his policy ideas and he was the first socialist I've had a chance to vote for.

 

That's not following left wing propaganda. That's simply agreeing with the issues being raised and also agreeing with some of the solutions put forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jase,

The point I was making was that

The people aren't stupid, Johnson did very little, and most of what he did was actually stupid 

- the people listened to Corbyn and read the policies on labourlist, like I did, and decided ' Nope'

 

So it wasn't a major Johnson propaganda victory, it was a major Corbynista WAKE UP call, and they must have their heads deep in somewhere to keep bleating:

We won the argument (like heck)

We had the moral high ground (since when is deselecting your elected MP's, and telling everyone else they are wrong the moral high ground?)

Our policies were right (for you maybe but not for the majority)

and best of all

Our policies that won us the argument (sigh) and people didn't understand (huh?) must be continued and we must show everyone else they were wrong if it takes us a hundred years .....

 

Look in a mirror - thats all you need to do to see the problem ...

 

Corbyn and his ilke need to be gone. He's got us all his Brexit - he can pi** off now so we have some sort of choice on who to vote for

- cause it demonstrably aint Corbyn or his continuation candidates no matter who the Tory is, or however deep your head is buried.

 

Edited by tobyjugg2

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bet Putins looking at all those experts he gave millions and millions too to get his way, and thinking 'I could have got this result for 100k  rather than the 100M i spent

 

50000 votes at 3 quid each - bought the country - bargain.

 

Hey experts I gave all that money too, we need to have a little talk ...


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

Jase,

The point I was making was that

The people aren't stupid, Johnson did very little, and most of what he did was actually stupid 

- the people listened to Corbyn and read the policies on labourlist, like I did, and decided ' Nope'

 

So it wasn't a major Johnson propaganda victory, it was a major Corbynista WAKE UP call, and they must have their heads deep in somewhere to keep bleating:

We won the argument (like heck)

We had the moral high ground (since when is deselecting your elected MP's, and telling everyone else they are wrong the moral high ground?)

Our policies were right (for you maybe but not for the majority)

and best of all

Our policies that won us the argument (sigh) and people didn't understand (huh?) must be continued and we must show everyone else they were wrong if it takes us a hundred years .....

 

Look in a mirror - thats all you need to do to see the problem ...

 

Corbyn and his ilke need to be gone. He's got us all his Brexit - he can pi** off now so we have some sort of choice on who to vote for

- cause it demonstrably aint Corbyn or his continuation candidates no matter who the Tory is, or however deep your head is buried.

 

 

Ughhhhh,  are we going there again?  😄  (take away brexit and you would have had a very different result 👍)

 

I don't buy the notion that they need to go with someone different again.  Corbyn came to power simply because he was considered so very different.  Now that his tenure is coming to an end is there that much of a clamour to return to what it was previously?  People did want something different and not another blairite clone.

 

I know you won't like it but labour would be mad to not go with a woman this time around.  It's crazy that they've never had a female leader, and this is the perfect opportunity to move on from Corbyn, although still remaining on the same track.  I think Labour would truly have missed the target if they elect Keir Starmer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

 

Ughhhhh,  are we going there again?  😄  (take away brexit and you would have had a very different result 👍)

 

 

Rubbish

 

 

6 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

 

 

I don't buy the notion that they need to go with someone different again.

 

 

We know - just like Corbyn clinging on like a dried up bogey

Surprised you thought that wouldn't happen given your stance now that it should

 

 

6 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

 

.  Corbyn came to power simply because he was considered so very different.  Now that his tenure is coming to an end is there that much of a clamour to return to what it was previously?  People did want something different and not another blairite clone.

 

 

.. and came to realise just how wrong that was

 

 

6 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

 

I know you won't like it but labour would be mad to not go with a woman this time around.  It's crazy that they've never had a female leader, and this is the perfect opportunity to move on from Corbyn, although still remaining on the same track.  I think Labour would truly have missed the target if they elect Keir Starmer.

 

Not by anywhere near as far as if they chose ANY Corbyn junior ..

Whatever race, colour, creed or sexual orientation that junior might be.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by tobyjugg2

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, London1971 said:

But aside from Brexit people had the opportunity to see Boris & co and what they would be like . Yet still wanted it to happen.

 

 

We knew it would be a car crash. Yet the country gave it the full go ahead. 

 

I think thats worth examination.

We know that there is no one answer,

* The vast majority of those who identify as Tory will almost certainly always vote Tory

* The majority of of those who identify as Labour voters will almost always vote labour (at least until Corbyn)

* Hard Right will always be hard right no matter what

* We can see that Corbynistas will be Corbynistas no matter what

 

* It IS almost certain that a good number would believe the spin that it'll all be great and lets get brexit done and there WILL be an extra 350M a week for the NHS and more nurses and pay will go up and food costs will go down ... Who remembers that women on the documentary still hanging on to the 'extra 350M a week for the NHS ... she wasn't and isn't alone

 

BUT what about the millions of others including many life long labour voters as London and I appear to belong to?

.. Looked at the facts and didn't believe the spin on either side, but still didn't want Corbyn or now - Corbynism no matter how we ended up voting (perhaps in desperation voting against Johnson).

 

Now I did vote Labour (NOT Corbyn) and reluctantly at that, but millions clearly didn't.

 

As both Johnson and Corbyn were Brexiters ... its hard to lay the blame on Brexit

... although its clear many on both sides of the Remain/Leave camp (were the figures  30% of previously Labour Brexit voters and 25% of previously Labour Remain voters) didn't believe Corbyn was the man to deliver what they wanted.

(so 25% of the approx 75% Labour Remainers and 30% of the approx 25% Labour Leavers - didn't trust Corbyn)

 

and that IS NOT confirming Jases distorted view of Brexit as yet another in the long line of excuses for Corbyn

.. it just demonstrates that vast numbers on BOTH sides didn't believe in Corbyn.

 

Nor does it indicate that without Brexit Corbyn would have done better - it just demonstrates peoples views of Corbyn and his policies.

Wont be voting for Corbynism Labour again whatever happens.

 

Edited by tobyjugg2

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So taking 10 million labour voters as the Benchmark,  that means

600,000 ex labour leave voters

2,000,000 ex labour Remain voters

vs

40,000 momentum members (and even those - only 7000 of which voted for Long-Bailey)

 

and thinking that those disaffected Remain voters will return to Corbynista Labour having been failed so badly once their choices have been so badly ignored is just more corbynista head in the sand,  and more of the apparent Corbynista standard approach:

- well they've got no other choice but us have they, they should listen ..

 

 

.. and I have no doubts whatsoever it was driven by disaffection with the whole Corbyn package and nothing but 'stop johnson' as an excuse to do otherwise.

 

 

 

Edited by tobyjugg2

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

 

and thinking that those disaffected Remain voters will return to Corbynista Labour having been failed so badly once their choices have been so badly ignored is just more corbynista head in the sandand more of the apparent Corbynista standard approach:

- well they've got no other choice but us have they, they should listen ..

 

 

There is no such thing as Corbynism.  It is socialism.  What are people going to do if Rebecca Long-Bailey becomes leader ... call it Long-Baileyism 😆

 

We should remember the above when looking at Labour going forward because some of Socialism is pretty sound.  Otherwise we'd have no NHS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

 

There is no such thing as Corbynism.  It is socialism.  What are people going to do if Rebecca Long-Bailey becomes leader ... call it Long-Baileyism 😆

 

 

Obfuscate and avoid - a TRUE Corbynista

 

Corbyn junior, who is only where she is because she supported Corbyn - and apparently helped write his policies, would still be Crappy Corbynism

... which is socialism as much as stalinism was


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jase1982 said:

We should remember the above when looking at Labour going forward because some of Socialism is pretty sound.  Otherwise we'd have no NHS.

 

 

Don't you mean that without an elected Labour Party (the one I voted for and paid into over decades, that same one that you did NOT vote for or support) there would be no NHS

 

and looking forward at an ineffective, MP deselecting, head in sand,  unelectable Corbynite labour, we can see Johnson in power for years to come ..


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a clever article. Mark Steel in the Independent pointing out lack of logic in the new immigration policy.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/priti-patel-immigration-laws-points-uk-deportation-low-skilled-a9347566.html?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=Feed


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article HB

 

hers one that summarises the impact,

and before all the xeno's think 'who cares about Scotland, what she states is the situation for all those English areas that use migrant labour - who simply don't seem to have a voice in England.

Like Thatchers Lincolnshire for starters ..

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/19/uk-immigration-plans-prompt-criticism-and-fresh-calls-for-scottish-visa

Edited by tobyjugg2

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rumour mill has it (genuine rumour not me) that Geoffrey Cox was not dumped and replaced by Suella Braverman because of his saying that the illegal proroguing of parliament was 'arguably'  legal,  or for hurling abuse at Parliament, or for anything else he did;

but apparently because despite all he WAS prepared to do, he was not on board for 'working around' (reneging)  actual international agreements with the EU whereas Suella Braverman is more than happy to rubber stamp owt.

 

Johnson has apparently briefed his staff to come up with ways to 'work around' the Irish border agreement...

Wait until he upsets the VERY powerful American-Irish US lobby group on top of everything else and see where it gets him.

 

 

The UK as a nearer target for Russian nukes in a 'limited' nuclear engagement might not seem quite so attractive to Trump when the Irish-American lobbiests go to town on him.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/24/limited-nuclear-war-game-us-russia?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX1VTTW9ybmluZ0JyaWVmaW5nLTIwMDIyNQ%3D%3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=USMorningBriefing&CMP=usbriefing_email

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uk-trident-nuclear-warheads-replacement-us-1888149

 

 

Edited by tobyjugg2

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the PM does that, the world may never trust us again.


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would be better off trusting the No 10 cat alone with a mouse.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its been rather clear thats what he's been doing since before Labours election debacle where the EU had backed off from even trying to negotiate with Johnsons 'team'

 

Like the nuclear missile agreement being simply stated to the US press before UK parliament was informed, let alone agreed

- the EU was briefing stuff that did not line up in any way with what Johnsons mob was saying to the UK press and people.

 

We see which was true

 

This is why Johnson wants a 'gentlemens agreement with nothing binding, but the EU requires binding agreements.

NOBODY trusts Johnson. Nor should they.

 

 

 

 

 


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More to the point watch for ERG Snake Oil used to justify Johnson's position from Shankar Singham, Johnson is the patsy for when it goes West, and the Hedge Funder's like the Beadle make a killing.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"That Britain’s major defence decisions are being debated in the United States, but not in the UK, is a scandal."

 

So much for returning power to the UK Parliament.


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HMG are excelling themselves today. 

 

They'll walk away from the EU in June if they don't like what's on offer and start preparing for a WTO exit. Given how far their new red lines are from the EU's it's really hard to see how they can get very far in the negotiations. 

 

And they're leaving the European Arrest Warrant system against legal advice. Why?


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

 

 

And they're leaving the European Arrest Warrant system against legal advice. Why?

 

Answer to this is already in the thread HB

 

- Hint: Human Rights

 

 

at least i think I posted it in this thread ...

EU have already stated they will instruct their law enforcement not to work 'closely'  with countries that aren't signed up to the ECHR

 

- so expect a Johnson repeal on that tout suit - with his new law munger

Edited by tobyjugg2

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe what I'm reading today. We don't need farming or fishing?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/01/treasury-adviser-farming-and-fisheries-are-not-important

 

And a US trade deal won't go anywhere near replacing what we look like losing from the EU. Even Liz Truss thinks so now.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/02/uk-says-it-will-not-lower-standards-to-strike-trade-deal-with-trump


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

HB, we already have a great deal - its called the withdrawal agreement,

.. mind you reports are that Johnson is working toward reneging on even that ...

 

What more could one ask for?

Edited by tobyjugg2

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes, I forgot about the great deal. :D

 

I don't see the EU letting the PM renege on the WA, but time will tell. As I said before, if he does that, the world might never trust us again.


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its alleged that Tory MPs have been whipped to declare (scripted) support of Pritti Patel in advance of a none independent investigation where johnson has the final say

I think it would be far more suitable for the following process to be applied to her ..

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/02/dwp-accused-of-offering-disabled-people-take-it-or-leave-it-benefits

 

 

as Johnson sends a Turkey (Rabb) to Turkey, apparently in support of Turkeys invasion and annexation of another chunk of Syria and in supporting Turkeys NUSRA Islamic radicals' Northern Syria safe zone

 

 

 

and

the official analysis also showed that a more limited trade deal with the US would deliver benefits to the UK economy worth just 0.07% by the middle of the 2030s, or about £1.4bn.

compared to The government previously estimating damage to the economy as much as 7.6% smaller should Britain leave the EU without a deal, and about 4.9% smaller under Boris Johnson’s preferred but apparently NOT available Canada-style agreement.

 

"Dr Peter Holmes, an academic at the UK Trade Policy Observatory at Sussex University, said: “The numbers are very small. It just goes to show how tiny the gains are from an free trade agreement with the US compared to losing our present arrangements with the EU.”"

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/02/uk-says-it-will-not-lower-standards-to-strike-trade-deal-with-trump


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Deportations

 

Twenty-five others scheduled to be on board avoided removal after courts ruled that they had not been granted adequate access to legal advice — breaking Home Office policy.

 

Another charter flight left a week later carrying asylum seekers to Europe under the Dublin Convention — but at least 16 individuals were taken off the flight after it emerged the Home Office had failed to act on indicators that they had been victims of torture and exploitation.

 

 

and it should come as no surprise:

 

The Times reported last week that allegations against home secretary Priti Patel centre on bullying civil servants because they would not breach the court order.


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...