Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • davemorton
    • By davemorton 30th Nov 18, 11:43 AM
    • 27,218Posts
    • 325,371Thanks
    davemorton
    Elite: Is this table taken please?
    • #1
    • 30th Nov 18, 11:43 AM
    Elite: Is this table taken please? 30th Nov 18 at 11:43 AM
    Just looking for a spare quiet table in the corner of the arms for a few exiled elite to chat, is this table free please?
    “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
    Juvenal, The Sixteen Satires
Page 461
    • tweets
    • By tweets 13th Jun 19, 5:40 PM
    • 33,816 Posts
    • 445,804 Thanks
    tweets
    Done that stupid level
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • Enterprise 1701C
    • By Enterprise 1701C 13th Jun 19, 6:11 PM
    • 21,860 Posts
    • 221,294 Thanks
    Enterprise 1701C
    Done that stupid level
    Originally posted by tweets
    Well done

    I am currently about to throw 4892 out of the window
    What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare
    • tweets
    • By tweets 13th Jun 19, 6:35 PM
    • 33,816 Posts
    • 445,804 Thanks
    tweets
    Well done

    I am currently about to throw 4892 out of the window
    Originally posted by Enterprise 1701C
    Good luck with it

    I am now stuck on next level
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 13th Jun 19, 6:37 PM
    • 21,477 Posts
    • 270,298 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Edits it out? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48628007 Boo, I was going to listen to it but never mind - will now have to rely on whether numerous people make upload to YouTube and 50 million other websites. So now we have it - censorship. And the Streisand effect as millions more than ever listened now become aware of it. The BBC have been defending it, but now it has been edited out, this is a sure admission that it was inappropriate. Otherwise, if you thought it wasn't, why would you now edit it out?!?

    I am glad there is a police enquiry because in my view free speech has been under attack, and given that there is a police enquiry, I will say nothing more about this but everything else now is in general terms and is not about or related to this specific case. I almost chuckled when Savid Javid recently tweeted, after the summons for Boris Johnson was quashed, that free speech feels challenged - as the Home Office in my view have been one of the biggest attackers against free speech in recent years. For example terrorism laws turned on everyone else, such as photographers, as they apply to everyone and not just murderous terrorists, and with the Home Office banning a rapper from entering the country for some years (although the ban has recently been lifted: https://www.thefader.com/2019/05/20/tyler-the-creator-london-brixton-igor) and with responsibility for public order and anti-social behaviour laws that I see as often suppressing speech. Arguments about human rights were long ago thrown out by the courts as they don't grant the right to be abusive and, as soon as you are, then it seems to trump any right to free speech entirely as that is always only a qualified right. In other words, you can do it until there is a law against it and then you can't because there is a law and protection of morals.

    However, then I looked at the Home Secretary's tweet and the Home Office is actually able to escape because his tweet isn't actually against challenges to free speech in themselves, instead it seems all to work one way and is about free speech for politicians and not anyone else: "...we should always seek to debate political arguments in the open rather than close them down."

    I am being silly since my post here is me using my own speech; however it has become increasingly clear in the past decade that this country in fact does not support free speech even though it claims to do so - it is yet again just something people claim exists but in fact does not - and as a result I no longer support free speech at all - it does not exist (this is a silly thing to say in this context of me being able to post this text itself I know) - and I believe that people should be suppressed and censored. I am the honest one on this - at least I admit my intention is to suppress. People will have seen me some time ago posting about misogyny and indeed yet again this was part of an obsessive topic of interest by myself.

    When I was much young, I understood that misogyny meant "hatred of women". Now, however, it's no longer necessary to have hatred - a very strong thing indeed - but anything at all merely negative in any minor way that mentions women is now misogynistic. There isn't any standard except that, if one person says it is, then it is and now almost everything is covered and if someone says something is misogynistic, then their view cannot be questioned as it is always right. As usual, it only works one way and if people are abusive and disrespectful to me - no-one on here folks but instead the entire rest of society for the past two decades and by the conduct of organisations rather than individuals - then no-one care and my rights suddenly do not matter. It doesn't matter if I ought to be protected but they fail to do so and cause me harm. It only matters when it is to protect them. Only other people's rights matter and mine don't, because mine are less valid and everyone else's opinion trumps mine. It is so unfair but that it how it is.

    Completely separate, the CPS published its "clear" guidance on hate crime relating to expression of hostility a few years back. However, the guidance then says that they use the ordinary meaning and that hostility "could" be being unfriendly. It does not say that it *is* being unfriendly or not, but that it merely *could" be.

    Clear guidance: it says "could be". Not whether it actually is or is not. The supposedly clear guidance is therefore unclear to me, as it leaves me up in the air as to whether being unfriendly actually is hostility or not. As usual, the world is non-specific and is entirely vague whilst claiming to be clear. It merely said it could be. Well - is it or isn't it? That's the clear guidance: it could be. Or it could be absolutely anything else at all... However, there is the clarity: mere lack of friendliness could be hostility and if that is perceived then it may be unlawful. You don't have to hate anyone or express hatred to be guilty of hate crime, merely not liking someone or perhaps merely being neutral and not being totally friendly is enough.

    In my view things have gone ridiculous in this country and no-one else respects my rights - of course if I were to be disrespectful, I would be immediately wrong but anyone else can do this and regularly disrespect and ignore or behave completely inappropriately towards me and they don't care and no-one else takes any notice of me. Only when it fits and only if it suits.

    So, given that suppression of free speech has now gone to ridiculousness in this country, I hope that there are prosecutions and, if I was on a jury (which I never could be), I would certainly convict everyone. I believe that if something is ridiculous, then it should be done even more so that we can descend into proper ridiculousness rather than merely not being quite there totally and trying to mitigate it. There isn't any free speech if hypothetically someone is inciting violence. I therefore do not support free speech and do not support incitement either. I believe people should be suppressed, prosecuted and sent to jail if they do anything whether jokingly or not. This is not a free country and does not support free speech and I hope this post itself gets deleted because of my intemperate remarks here. In fact there are several other things which I will not even say, the suppression that has been happening for several years now is so great that I don't even dare try to post what I have thought - with some people, being given ability to suppress others, being the very people to be inconsistent and misleading themselves. I am not referring to the Home Secretary but I am not able to tell you what I am referring to. And, of course, as regards returning back to politics, as long as any lies are open and distributed to all and sundry to be influenced and misled by them, and thus in my view cause all the harm, that's all right then.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 13-06-2019 at 9:07 PM.
    • Enterprise 1701C
    • By Enterprise 1701C 13th Jun 19, 6:40 PM
    • 21,860 Posts
    • 221,294 Thanks
    Enterprise 1701C
    Good luck with it

    I am now stuck on next level
    Originally posted by tweets
    Just done it
    What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 13th Jun 19, 7:16 PM
    • 21,477 Posts
    • 270,298 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Absolutely ridiculous. (In my view.)

    BBC says "because of the strong reaction, we have decided it edit it out." WELL HOW STRONG A REACTION DO YOU NOW WANT FROM ME ABOUT YOU EDITING IT OUT?!? I AM OFFENDED. I AM OFFENDED, UPSET AND PHYSICALLY HEART-SHAKING AS A RESULT OF YOU EDITING OUT. AND YES I AM SHOUTING!! That the sheer strength of my reaction and I hope my physical offence is now so much stronger than anything exhibited by Nigel Farage. As it is clearly now a competition in how strong someone can react to something.

    However - I have calmed (sadly, as it reduces the validity of the strength of the reaction) - it does not matter what I say and does not matter even if how strongly I complain to the BBC, they will not listen to me and will only listen to other people. Because other people matter and I am disrespected and do not.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 13th Jun 19, 7:18 PM
    • 21,477 Posts
    • 270,298 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Actually my heart is physically shaking in annoyance and offence (I'm sorry it's not a lie). However, they do not care a jot I feel.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 13-06-2019 at 7:37 PM.
    • tweets
    • By tweets 13th Jun 19, 7:42 PM
    • 33,816 Posts
    • 445,804 Thanks
    tweets
    Just done it
    Originally posted by Enterprise 1701C
    I still struggling with one off again on next level nearly time to give up
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 13th Jun 19, 7:57 PM
    • 21,477 Posts
    • 270,298 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    I'd better avoid the news this evening (not easy for me to do so) so as not to infuriate and trigger myself off even more by seeing repeated and offensive mentions of editing things out.

    Meanwhile, I still don't like Glastonbury Festival, whether it should be once or twice about it today or not.

    Number of days until an apology for causing me all my negativity by withdrawing the act... I should not hold your breath. Answer is "never". They pick and choose whose negativity they wish to respond to, clearly. In other words, if it affects me - whoever the organisation is, it is not about Glastonbury - no-one cares. Or, if they do, they show me no evidence of them doing so.

    I can even be given (back in 2009 and still have it nowadays) post-traumatic stress disorder through organisations repeatedly not caring about me over weeks, months and years on end, despite repeated complaints from me about what they were causing to me, and they still don't care. I am left with extended hours of uncontrolled bad heart racing repeatedly over every few or other weeks. It doesn't matter - someone's else momentary offence, that seems to cause no evidence of clinical depression or any post-traumatic stress, is not merely more important - it is important and mine does not matter at all. There is nothing I can do - I was at the end of my tether and back several times by ten years ago, and been through all treatment (that has remarkably proved belated and ineffective) and then been at a loss as to where to go as nowhere can help and then end of my tether again and there's just nothing I can do or anything that can resolve it - instead I am confined to PTSD symptoms on repeated occasions over random intervals probably for the rest of my life. The main problem is people that ignore me* - that is a real PTSD trigger for me these days and repeatedly so, as I get re-caused it two weeks later when they still haven't responded, and then a month later when I think about them again and get deeply angered and annoyed inside to the most extreme level once again. It is a shame I can't go round beating people up. It would do me a world of good if I could. Unfortunately for myself however I cannot do so, and never would do so, and as a result all the anger and annoyance remains inside me and makes me feel even worse.

    Ignoring me, failing to respond. It's just a pure abusive treatment of me about which no-one cares.

    https://www.heysigmund.com/the-silent-treatment/

    https://www.aconsciousrethink.com/5547/silent-treatment-abuse/

    *when I've asked for a reply, therefore not this thread folks as not asking for a reply, although if anyone does give a reasonable reply, I won't be bothered by it
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 13-06-2019 at 8:24 PM.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 13th Jun 19, 8:20 PM
    • 21,477 Posts
    • 270,298 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    I still struggling with one off again on next level nearly time to give up
    Originally posted by tweets
    Glad you're struggling!! No, I'm not. It's just - we all have our struggles and I hope yours gets better or eases or preferably disappears altogether soon.

    (… As no-one cares about mine.)
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 13th Jun 19, 8:37 PM
    • 21,477 Posts
    • 270,298 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Actually, in the rest of life, I did tell someone the other week that they had upset me. And they didn't seem the least bit bothered or care about it at all and then just returned to chatting with the rest of the group and reverted to ignoring me. They failed to recognise that they had upset me when, having contacted their organisation earlier about a dispute I was in with someone else, they seemed to take it upon themselves to invite the person in without even informing me in advance let alone seeking my permission. And, yes, you do need my permission first rather than behaving completely disrespectfully and assuming that inviting the person in would be fine rather than it contributing to harassing me. As I had effectively complained about that person, I felt it inappropriate to be meeting them to discuss anything. I want no contact with them and it is uncomfortable seeing people face to face after, in effect, a complaint about them. I do not know how they assumed it was okay.

    When I was met and informed they were in the building, it caused me to freeze because of the distress that telling me they were there caused me and then I couldn't think of anything at all. I was then silent in the other room and they failed to recognise that I was upset. After everyone else was contributing and me no longer saying anything (because I could not think straight about anything), they eventually turned to me and I told them them I wasn't okay (it was because of what they had done) - they didn't seem the least bit concerned. They are not. People generally, I think nowadays, pretend to be concerned when they are not - the "how are you?" is not a genuine enquiry - from most people it isn't - it's just a pretence at politeness that doesn't expect any genuine answer - and when this person wasn't concerned, they showed it all too clearly by proceeding to reject and ignore me. It was, I think, because I said "sorry I'm not feeling too well and don't want to take part" - they misunderstood that as not wanting to be spoken to - what I said wasn't carefully phrased, it was because I was upset and couldn't think straight - but as usual with me the words don't come out right (in oral speech) and get misunderstood. I actually wanted them to express empathy for my not feeling too well - because they themselves had upset me - but instead they just ignore me.

    You may say "well, they misunderstood - - and you recognise it". Whilst I recognise it, that is only now, weeks later, it is not at the moment in time and asking for me to speak up to someone to make clear I want them to speak to me is asking a lot of an autistic person as it is part of the problem in the first place. The main one is that people make assumptions again and again, nearly all of which are wrong.

    They may have been surprised when I had an objection and thought their invite was inappropriate because they thought it was appropriate and couldn't put themselves into my shoes and see that it was not, and people do not like it when they are wrong and continue to behave the same way pretending they are right. In other words, they still go ahead with the inappropriate thing anyway and ignore me. They were seeking to resolve things, by having the person along to speak to me. However, I think part of the reason the person I have in effect complained about wants to speak to me is because they want to say something off the record and not have it recorded at all, so that they can later deny that they said it. That is why they will never put anything in writing to me I suspect. So I am not going down this road and meeting them in any event.

    The trouble is that so much that people generally do is not genuine that I now reject everything as not being genuine when, on a rare occasion, it might actually be genuine. That's a problem because I can't trust anything people say when so often it is not meant and therefore the one occasion when they are telling the truth I don't accept it either.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 13-06-2019 at 9:00 PM.
    • curl girl
    • By curl girl 13th Jun 19, 9:22 PM
    • 4,016 Posts
    • 39,504 Thanks
    curl girl
    Savvy, I'm sorry to read about people upsetting you and causing distress.
    I realise you analyse thing's so detailed but you should learn to ignore things/people who upset you so much.....
    Last edited by curl girl; 13-06-2019 at 9:29 PM.
    curl girl with a space - even though there is no space in my cupboard!!!
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 13th Jun 19, 9:25 PM
    • 21,477 Posts
    • 270,298 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Anyway, nothing really matters now, because we live in country where taking Class A drugs is now acceptable as long as -

    (a) you don't get caught at the time;
    (b) you only tell people about twenty years later; and
    (c) you express "deep regret" about what you did (although I am not sure whether (c) is a requirement).

    So, all bets are off now. Because, even when there are laws, people don't comply with them anyway so none of them really matter do they?
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 13th Jun 19, 9:30 PM
    • 21,477 Posts
    • 270,298 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Savvy, I'm sorry to read about people upsetting you and causing distress.
    I realise you analyse thing's so detailed but you should learn to ignore things/people who upset you so much.....

    Evening all.
    Originally posted by curl girl
    Thank you. I should learn things, but I won't. Because it is impossible to ignore something when you are upset. It has already upset you (the global you) so you can't ignore it as you are upset. It comes too late to ignore anything once it has succeeded in upsetting me.

    Again though, I think it's just proof that people outside don't really care because they are not bothered when they distress me. However, if I ever did anything that upset them, then the tables are turned and they'd call the police on me. After all, it has been made a criminal offence in some areas to cause harassment, alarm or distress. So, I am not to do it, as I comply with laws, whilst no-one else cares and constantly breaks them. It doesn't matter if I am caused distress as my distress does not count.
    • curl girl
    • By curl girl 13th Jun 19, 9:42 PM
    • 4,016 Posts
    • 39,504 Thanks
    curl girl
    Thank you. I should learn things, but I won't. Because it is impossible to ignore something when you are upset. It has already upset you (the global you) so you can't ignore it as you are upset. It comes too late to ignore anything once it has succeeded in upsetting me.

    Again though, I think it's just proof that people outside don't really care because they are not bothered when they distress me. However, if I ever did anything that upset them, then the tables are turned and they'd call the police on me. After all, it has been made a criminal offence in some areas to cause harassment, alarm or distress. So, I am not to do it, as I comply with laws, whilst no-one else cares and constantly breaks them. It doesn't matter if I am caused distress as my distress does not count.
    Originally posted by Savvybuyer
    As the saying goes savvy.
    Don't let the b******* grind you down....

    I know you don't like swearing but I'm sure you know what I mean!

    Night savvy, sleep well. X
    curl girl with a space - even though there is no space in my cupboard!!!
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 13th Jun 19, 10:20 PM
    • 21,477 Posts
    • 270,298 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    As the saying goes savvy.
    Don't let the people grind you down....

    I know you don't like swearing but I'm sure you know what I mean!

    Night savvy, sleep well. X
    Originally posted by curl girl
    Before you go, can you (or someone) check something for me. I've just had a "StopCode" error on my machine and, after several restarts, everything now seems fine except for the BBC website. Is bbc.co.uk normal for everyone else including I-player or is there a problem with it on my computer? TIA.

    Also found some 'fix' sites online but don't want to download anything in case it doesn't fix something but is malicious instead. Anyone aware of which ones are genuine?

    EDIT: Strange. BBC website is alright in "In Private" mode but not in Microsoft Edge.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 14-06-2019 at 10:55 PM.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 13th Jun 19, 10:51 PM
    • 21,477 Posts
    • 270,298 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    As the saying goes savvy.
    Don't let the people grind you down....

    I know you don't like swearing but I'm sure you know what I mean!

    Night savvy, sleep well. X
    Originally posted by curl girl
    In fact you get me wrong, because it's not swearing (whatever that is) per se that I have any objection to, instead it is asterisks such as those. Due to various things that happened in my life, the things using the asterisks are the trigger material for me. Seeing and reading the full swear words I actually like these days, given that all of those are now everyday for me, although this thread doesn't allow us to see them most times. (I presume this is because people don't want me to see anything good these days.) However, both you and I are in luck as the asterisks don't seem to me triggering me more recently - instead I just seem to get deeply angry and indignant about other things these days, sometimes for no apparent reason. It sounds worse than it is though, since the vast majority of the day I have felt fine (and indeed I am fine now). Therefore, you "knew" something, that I didn't like swearing, that isn't actually the case. Now, presumably, no-one knows anymore.

    Btw the word you mean in the phrase there isn't swearing. It is marked merely as "offensive" in some meanings in Collins Dictionary and isn't marked "taboo". Therefore, it is only a potentially offensive word and not a swear word. Even though some or many people might think it is swearing, presumably because they don't know the English language as shown through what the dictionary says.

    EDIT: It just says "Rude, offensive, disapproval" these days - where is the evidence that it is taboo? It doesn't say "taboo", therefore not swearing. I know it says "Rude" - well, anything can be rude! Banging a door into my face is something that would most often be rude (the exception is if I have agreed for you to do it as part of a joke between us) - I don't see how "swearing", as such, is "rude". "Offensively impolite" - well, whatever! It isn't even rude, offensive or disapproval in the phrase you have attempted to use. People that use asterisks against my wishes are offensively impolite - because being against someone's wishes is the definition of "disrespectful". However, using the word would doubtless be against someone's wishes so would also be disrespectful. However, I didn't have any wish for you to use or not to use the asterisks, so I have seen no disrespect. Preventing others from using the word and forcing them to use asterisks is certainly disrespectful, as it doesn't comply with my wishes. So the only "disrespectful" person is the organisation again - the computer filter that stops us using the B word plural and makes people use asterisks or similar things, on the assumption that that is any better when it is not and doesn't also prohibit the asterisks. I suppose the evidence that it is taboo is that, on this forum but not in every other place in life, the word is subject to a formal restriction and prevented from being posted. However, if that standard was used, then several other words, marked as taboo in the dictionary, are allowed freely through here so the whole thing is inconsistent again.

    Whilst I think I know much of what might fall into "swearing", I have no idea what that exhaustively is as different people have different opinions and I'm not even sure the supposed "generally accepted" opinion (a) is generally accepted because I don't know how "generally" it has to be "accepted" with certain words at the margins - anywhere, is based on opinion polling asking people what they think but there is never any proof that what people say they think is actually what they think, it depends on how questions are phrased and the order in which they appear and people give inconsistent responses to different questions; and (b) even if I take 50% at the margin, and then have problems over a small number of words whose margin of error might be between 49% and 52%, not all words have been researched anyway so don't know which further words might also be generally accepted to be swearing even though I never understood them to be, the "generally accepted" stance goes beyond what any of three respectable different dictionaries suggest, so I don't know that it is correct either. And then people fail to prohibit every swear word in every circumstance, so are not even complete about that and then don't seem to react differently to it than any other words in certain situations, so it doesn't actually matter or seem to have any status in those circumstances (except that possibly it does because it perhaps signifies social groups, defines friends and social bonds - so the very fact it is swearing is why it is used there and could be argued to have a status as setting the social bond although it doesn't seem to matter).

    Anyway, I don't go by what people "accept" as being true, because many people accept things that are incorrect in a lot of cases it seems to me. I go by what actually is the truth, rather than what people, without evidence, "accept" to be true when it is false.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 14-06-2019 at 10:56 PM.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 13th Jun 19, 11:29 PM
    • 21,477 Posts
    • 270,298 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Glastonbury's still a pile of rubbish to me no matter what words are used.

    There - been negative, more negativity again - a pile of rubbish.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 13th Jun 19, 11:34 PM
    • 21,477 Posts
    • 270,298 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Having googled "rude", I noticed this entry:
    Rudeness
    Rudeness is a display of disrespect by not complying with the social norms or etiquette of a group or culture.

    However, swearing is used in some circumstances where it does comply with the social norms. Indeed, everyone else swears (I can't bring myself to do so but am not bothered by others doing so) and it is a normal part of the conversation in those situations. It does comply with the social norms and etiquette of a group and culture of young men* in a pub talking together with no-one around them who might be bothered being there and thus no problem being caused to anyone. In any event, the swearing is compliant with the social norms and etiquette of the group or culture. So it is not rudeness. Or maybe it is not even swearing in that situation but is only swearing and rude in other situations when it is. However, people still refer to the words as "swearing" regardless of what situation they are in, so I have no clue. If it were not swearing in situations in which it is socially acceptable, it would mean that there was no swearing in situations in which people generally swear, so they would not actually be swearing at all in those situations. As I said, I have no idea what anything is or is not anymore.

    *and probably young women too - don't want to be sexist about it, though some historical views look down on women that do it. For clarity, I don't, because I am not sexist - but some people do apply higher standards (and therefore less favourable in my view) to women. But then that assumes that they are higher standards, and defines "swearing" (whatever that is) as automatically being of somehow lower quality when it is objectively neutral. Anyway, some people object to women swearing when they wouldn't to men doing the same thing in the same situation. I don't think this applies in my generation although I could be wrong.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 13-06-2019 at 11:48 PM.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 13th Jun 19, 11:53 PM
    • 21,477 Posts
    • 270,298 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Anyway, I will put my computer to bed now and hope it is alright again when I turn it back on later in the day. The BBC website seems to be back to normal now in both places - after the flick of a switch or two - although I can never tell just from the way something looks.

    Bye for now.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,371Posts Today

7,112Users online

Martin's Twitter