Welcome to Cutting Edge. Guests can see and read the contents of most of the boards on this forum but need to become members to read all of them. Currently membership is instant, but new accounts may be deleted if not activated within fourteen days.

If you decide to join the forum, please open your welcome message for further details. New members are requested to introduce themselves on the appropriate thread on our welcome board.

Members may post messages and start threads, but it is essential that they read our posting rules and advice before doing so. If you have any immediate questions or queries, please post them on the suggestions board.

After posting at least ten messages, members are able to contact each other and the staff through our personal messaging system.

This forum is administrated by Ivan and moonbeam and moderated by boatlady and astradt1.

Thank you for visiting Cutting Edge.

What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Go down

What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by Ivan on Mon Dec 19, 2016 12:29 am

First topic message reminder :

Many of the members who regularly take part in the ‘Labour doorstep’ campaign are told in working class areas that the party doesn’t seem to care about those who should be its core supporters. This isn’t a response which has become prevalent in the last year or so, it goes back much further. Tony Blair, and to a lesser extent Gordon Brown, took the working class for granted, probably assuming that they had nowhere else to go. They were wrong. Labour’s parliamentary representation in Scotland has been virtually extinguished, and in England enough of its natural supporters have gone to UKIP to damage the party and let the Tories in. This all happened before Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party, so let's not try to blame him.

If Labour has been perceived, rightly or wrongly, as deserting the working class, maybe it’s because it has been too concerned with chasing the votes of ‘moderate’ Tories. But ask yourself – what price has to be paid to gain the support of people who approve of the bedroom tax, savage cuts to welfare, the trebling of tuition fees, tax cuts for the rich and the creeping privatisation of the NHS? What sort of a Labour Party would emasculate itself to the extent that it is attractive to people who hold such views? The Tories have moved the centre of political gravity ever further to the right, so why should Labour try to occupy what Tories and their media poodles now define as ‘the centre ground’?

Those who have deserted Labour for UKIP have been persuaded that the EU and immigrants are the cause of most of their problems. If Brexit happens – and even if it doesn’t – at least some of those people will eventually realise that imports (and in particular food) are going to become dearer, an extra £350 million a week is not going to go to the NHS, and many bosses will continue to pay low wages, regardless of the number of immigrants in the country. They may even notice that the NHS is becoming ever more short-staffed. Labour must never pander to the ‘Alf Garnett’ mentality; to do so would betray the party’s basic principles and offend most of the membership so seriously that they would leave. History has also shown that trying to appease racists and fascists doesn’t work.

On the second part of this thread we were told by one poster that socialism is dead. I would suggest that it is merely dormant across most of the Western world, and that the needs which caused it to develop in the first place are very much in existence and requiring solutions. Capitalism doesn’t provide them, it just produces ever greater hardship and inequality. We can already see how in the UK home ownership is becoming out of the reach of more people, especially younger ones. The 62 richest people on the planet have as much wealth as half of the world’s population. On its present course, it will be capitalism that will destroy itself if low-wage workers can’t afford to buy what is produced.
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7171
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down


Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by boatlady on Mon Jul 10, 2017 6:04 pm

I see that the 'moderate' Jess Phillips is sniping again - this time because the 'moderate' Yvette Cooper isn't getting very far with her impassioned defence of Laura Kuenssberg - and has in fact attracted some criticism

boatlady
Administrator (Global Moderator)

Posts : 3791
Join date : 2012-08-24

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by boatlady on Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:57 pm

Anyone who remember the second leadership election last year may remember that I received a letter from Labour HQ to say that I was expelled from the party due to not being a suitable person to be in the membership.
Subsequently, I made a number of calls to Labour and eventually cancelled my Direct Debit.
Last night, imagine my surprise to be contacted by a pleasant young woman who wanted to remind me that my membership (?) is up for renewal and my subs are in arrears - what are these people ON?
I spoke to the secretary of the local CLP who tells me that, despite getting an expulsion letter, I still show up on her data base as an active party member - apparently, even if you've been expelled you still have to write to resign your membership.
I find this worrying - this is the party that aspires to govern our country. If they can't even do basic record keeping ---
avatar
boatlady
Administrator (Global Moderator)

Posts : 3791
Join date : 2012-08-24
Location : Norfolk

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by oftenwrong on Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:32 pm

Any organisation in any field of human activity, which relies upon unpaid volunteers to run "the back office", is likely to get what they paid for.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11912
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by snowyflake on Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:10 pm

boatlady wrote:Anyone who remember the second leadership election last year may remember that I received a letter from Labour HQ to say that I was expelled from the party due to not being a suitable person to be in the membership.
Subsequently, I made a number of calls to Labour and eventually cancelled my Direct Debit.
Last night, imagine my surprise to be contacted by a pleasant young woman who wanted to remind me that my membership (?) is up for renewal and my subs are in arrears - what are these people ON?
I spoke to the secretary of the local CLP who tells me that, despite getting an expulsion letter, I still show up on her data base as an active party member - apparently, even if you've been expelled you still have to write to resign your membership.
I find this worrying - this is the party that aspires to govern our country. If they can't even do basic record keeping ---

It's hard to remember things when you were a pothead in the 60's and 70's. afro lol! It was more likely a computer glitch and you were probably not even supposed to be cut from the membership. Were you secretly flogging Conservative propaganda and that's why you got cut? tongue
avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1217
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 59
Location : England

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by boatlady on Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:26 pm

Yes, Snowyflake - that'll be it - I'm a secret Tory
avatar
boatlady
Administrator (Global Moderator)

Posts : 3791
Join date : 2012-08-24
Location : Norfolk

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by Ivan on Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:22 pm

Now we know what cost Labour in 2015: Ed Miliband didn’t go far enough

From an article by Owen Jones:-

So now we know Labour suffered its 2015 rout not because it was too left-wing, but because it was not radical enough. Why conduct a post-mortem on the long-deceased, or pick at an old scab, when there are now so many fresher wounds? 2015, after all, was another political age. “2015 politics: Ed Miliband eats a sandwich a bit weirdly”, as one tweet put it last year, “2016 politics: everything is on fire”. Trump, Brexit, Corbyn, a snap election that calamitously rebounded: it sometimes feels as though 50 years of politics have been compressed into just two.

It matters because the debate over ideas has yet to be settled. During the initial rise of Jeremy Corbyn, Tony Blair – taking time off from advising brutal dictators – confessed that he would not want a left-wing Labour Party to win, even if he thought that was a plausible electoral route, which he did not. He advised Corbyn’s supporters to seek a heart transplant. He now has the honesty to say that this radical platform could indeed triumph, but he still would not wish it to do so. This perspective is not shared by the large majority of Labour MPs, many of whom believed the combined array of left-wing policies would lead to electoral Armageddon but are relieved – even excited – to discover otherwise.

Corbyn’s success is down to him and the insurgency behind him. He made the decision to paint his radical manifesto in “primary colours”, as one Labour figure from the old order puts it. Take rail: the old offer had promises on public options for rail that were too complex and muddled to cut through; Corbyn’s Labour simply offered nationalisation. In truth, the manifesto reflected where people had shifted. Corbyn went for bust and brought Labour closer to government than it had been after its terrible defeat two years ago.

New Labour was a product of its time. Thatcherism could not have triumphed in the 1960s; Corbynism is the child of our own era. To understand the future, we must reconsider the past. And the lesson is this: Labour’s role is to tear down a bankrupt social order, not defend it.


For the whole article:-
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7171
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by oftenwrong on Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:39 pm

Can discussion of "Labour" ever have much validity while so many professed members of the party clearly hold such divergent opinions?
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11912
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by boatlady on Wed Aug 23, 2017 3:52 pm

Yesterday, I had lunch with John McDonnell.
He came to Great Yarmouth to visit the small charity I work in and we had a lengthy discussion about the erosion of the welfare state and the many problems this brings for people in unskilled manual work, about the lack of affordable housing that is of decent standard.
He seemed impressed by the work we do (a small group of 6 volunteers) providing benefits advice and support and help on a number of issues) and promised to help with our fundraising and to raise our profile whenever he is able. He's also indicated that he is going to be encouraging other senior party members to be visiting us, which will of course raise the profile of the charity and the Labour party

He seems a very grounded individual with an excellent grasp of the realities of life under the Tories. I'm more than ever keen to see a Labour government, and feeling confident that the current leadership has what it takes to bring this about.

Just bursting with hero worship
avatar
boatlady
Administrator (Global Moderator)

Posts : 3791
Join date : 2012-08-24
Location : Norfolk

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by oftenwrong on Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:47 pm

The Labour Party Conference is on in Brighton now, and if you have access to an I-pad you can get full details of all the events from this link:


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11912
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by oftenwrong on Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:01 am

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Better to deal now with the social cost of robots replacing human workers, rather than locking the stable after the horse bolted which is Parliamentary custom.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11912
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by oftenwrong on Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:40 pm

Lots of happy faces in Brighton today, as Jeremy Corbyn's speech showed signs of genuine Star Quality.

One more heave ?

Must be worth a try.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11912
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by boatlady on Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:24 am

The conference seems to have been very high-energy and positive - looking forward to meeting up with friends who attended and getting the story from 'the horse's mouth' as it were
avatar
boatlady
Administrator (Global Moderator)

Posts : 3791
Join date : 2012-08-24
Location : Norfolk

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by trevorw2539 on Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:57 am

oftenwrong wrote:Lots of happy faces in Brighton today, as Jeremy Corbyn's speech showed signs of genuine Star Quality.  

One more heave ?

Must be worth a try.

I'm inclined to agree with you. Only the experience of Union Power in the last century would make me hesitate voting labour. Unions are concerned only with their members - and to hell with anyone else.
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1371
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by boatlady on Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:38 pm

And if all workers joined a union, that might not really be a problem
avatar
boatlady
Administrator (Global Moderator)

Posts : 3791
Join date : 2012-08-24
Location : Norfolk

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by trevorw2539 on Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:30 pm

boatlady wrote:And if all workers joined a union, that might not really be a problem
.

Ever seen the powerful Unions consider the general public? Miner's struck for excess wage rises. What about the Farm workers on wages far below. Farm workers whose job was farm more dangerous than that of mine workers. The miner's claim took no account of the public would have to pay. Ditto the Industrial workers. The Unions have no remit to bring down governments by industrial action. That's for the General Public at election time.
I have always believed that the Unions are responsible for pricing the UK out of World Markets - and no-one will persuade me otherwise. I know the difficulty of cheap labour in the East but it was not always so. We had markets for goods that were of quality not found by these countries but prices outstripped the demand. Now people have become used to cheap, throwaway goods and those markets were lost.

avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1371
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by Phil Hornby on Sat Sep 30, 2017 5:52 pm

" Farm workers whose job was farm more dangerous ..."

I love that Freudian slip!

And I agree that trade unionism can derail Corbyn if it is allowed ( or- even worse - encouraged) to rise again in its worst forms...
avatar
Phil Hornby
Blogger

Posts : 3980
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Drifting on Easy Street

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by oftenwrong on Sat Sep 30, 2017 6:12 pm

A fatal flaw of any Trade Union is that it can only ever represent WORKERS. An unemployed person cannot by definition be a Union member. Possibly why there has been such a rise in the number of pseudo self-employed.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11912
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by Ivan on Sat Sep 30, 2017 6:14 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:Unions are concerned only with their members - and to hell with anyone else.
And who are parasitic hedge fund managers and bankers concerned for? And who are Tory MPs with half a dozen other jobs concerned for? And whose interests are Rupert Murdoch and Paul Dacre concerned for? If trade unions weren’t concerned for the welfare of their members, they wouldn’t be doing their job, would they? And why is an industrial dispute always spun into being the fault of the union involved, never the management?

I don’t really see why you have an issue with unions, or why you associate that with not voting for the only party which has a hope of achieving power and making our society somewhat fairer. During the 1970s, when unions were at their strongest (and when - not by coincidence - there was greater equality in the UK than before or since), accidents and certified illnesses accounted for about 320 million lost days a year, thirty times more than those caused by industrial disputes. Unions are one line of protection (the EU has been another until now) against the sweat shop economy and tax haven which the Tories and their rich backers are determined to create here.

Unions don’t just fight for higher wages. I was subtly undermined in a job for ten years, yet always with a smile and never in any way that could be identified as bullying. Two pieces of legislation passed by the Tories when they were previously in power played into the hands of my tormentors in perfect fashion. Then, out of the blue, some unfounded allegations (which I would have been unable to defend without expensive legal support from my union) provided an end to the soul-destroying nightmare, with an exit for me and adequate remuneration. The bullies, who had wrapped themselves in Christianity to justify their behaviour, achieved what they wanted, but so did I.

Contrary to what many Tories still peddle, the union block vote in the Labour Party was abolished in 1993 when John Smith was the leader. In a more recent change, members of affiliated unions get individual votes in leadership elections, the same as party members. As Labour now has around 600,000 members (more than the memberships of all other UK parties combined, and six times as many as the Tories), the influence of union members has become somewhat diluted. Yes, some unions donate to the Labour Party, but that’s because they think it’s in the best interests of their members to have a Labour government rather than a Tory one. If you’re worried about undue influence in the political process, I suggest you start by looking at the press barons and then at hedge funds, which donate almost half of all the Tory Party’s finances.
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7171
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by trevorw2539 on Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:44 am

Hedge fund managers are simply glorified Investment managers. They use their expertise and clients money to make as much as possible. Sure, some are well imbursed, depending on their success. Others not so. Bankers do likewise. The only difference in essence is that you need plenty of money to use a hedge fund, not so a bank.

You cannot compare accidents to industrial disputes.

Sweat shops are, and always will be, a thing of the past. Any government who allows this will find themselves in trouble at the next election. It wasn't as easy in the past. Look at what is happening now. Government policies are putting the Tory Government in jeopardy of losing the next election. People are not as naive as in the past.

Unions had a great part in removing these in the first half of the 20th century. Since then many people have suffered at the hands of the Unions in industrial disputes, and every time we have heard the Union leaders apologise 'We are sorry for the inconvenience suffer by ......'. It's a sort of ritual.

I dislike the Union power. If Labour win the next election, as I believe they will, we will be in the hands of the Unions unless Labour control them. It only takes a persuasive loudmouth like Scargill to start a strike.

Ooops now I've put my foot in it.

I don't think the Tories have the right ideas/policies. Austerity is OK to a point. Brexit is stupid. But then I won't have to suffer it for too long at my age. My descendants will.

Anyway, that's how I see things. We will never agree. You are too left wing for me.
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1371
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Honest opinion, honestly held

Post by oftenwrong on Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:29 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
....I dislike the Union power. If Labour win the next election, as I believe they will, we will be in the hands of the Unions....

Possibly not the only one to have such a view, Scargill and Co. were to a certain extent goaded into over-reaction by a skillful Thatcher administration, advised by Reagan union-busters.

But if anyone thinks that the gentlemen of The City are less self-interested than Trade Unions, they just haven't been paying attention.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11912
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by Ivan on Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:04 pm

Jeremy Corbyn’s nationalisation plans are music to ears of public

Few opinion polls that claim to detect a shift in public attitudes merit the ubiquitous label “landmark research”, but here’s one that does. The Legatum Institute, a thinktank, and Populus have found levels of support for nationalising large parts of the economy that would have been hard to believe a few years ago.

The big four industries in the sights of Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell should all return to public ownership, according to a strong majority of respondents. Water topped the poll (83%), followed by electricity (77%), gas (77%) and the railways (76%).


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7171
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by oftenwrong on Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:50 am

The knee-jerk Tory response is always to claim that the cost of compensating the private owners of Utilities is unaffordable. But so is the current cost to the British consumer of paying fat dividends to foreign shareholders.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11912
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by trevorw2539 on Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:29 pm

Ivan wrote:Jeremy Corbyn’s nationalisation plans are music to ears of public

The big four industries in the sights of Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell should all return to public ownership, according to a strong majority of respondents. Water topped the poll (83%), followed by electricity (77%), gas (77%) and the railways (76%).

And what portion of the population was questioned. Rather reminds me of opinion polls. I wonder what would happen if the case for either side were put in simple terms to the general public. The cost and advantages to the private purse and the cost and advantages to the public purse.

Just a thought. I am in favour of some control of the utilities. Private enterprise has been with us since ancient times and always will.
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1371
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by Ivan on Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:43 pm

trevorw2539. In reply to some of your recent points.......

And what portion of the population was questioned.
Populus is a reputable polling company and no doubt used the usual methods (1,000+ respondents, selected to get a cross-section by age and location). Although I can understand anyone being sceptical of opinion polls after some of their failures in recent years, when the results are between 76% and 83% in a particular direction, it isn't very convincing to try to use the ‘genetic’ logical fallacy argument to rubbish them.

You cannot compare accidents to industrial disputes.
I wasn’t comparing them, I was putting the days lost through industrial disputes in context – thirty times fewer than the days lost through accidents and certified illnesses.

Sweat shops are, and always will be, a thing of the past.
I wouldn’t bank on that if certain right-wing Tory headbangers get their way:-

It is intellectually unsustainable to believe that workplace rights should remain untouchable.” (Liam Fox)

"British workers are among the worst idlers in the world." (Priti Patel)

Health and safety standards that are good enough for India should be good enough for the UK as well.” (Jacob Rees-Mogg)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This is one of the unspoken reasons that such obnoxious people want Brexit, so that we aren’t protected by EU health and safety regulations. They’d like the Beecroft Report implemented, so that there can be no-fault dismissals. It’s all part of a drive “to make the UK competitive” – with Asian sweat shops.

People are not as naive as in the past.
I strongly dispute that. Enough people were naive enough to believe all those lies about the EU, even to believe that there would be an extra £350m a week for the NHS (as if those right-wing Tories would ever give it), when we only make a net contribution of £161m a week. Too many people have been dumbed down by decades of tabloid lies, along with television crap such as ‘X Factor’ or watching people eat maggots in the jungle or sharing pot noodles on a settee. If people weren’t naive they would never elect a party which serves the interests of 5% of the population at most.

Many people have suffered at the hands of the Unions in industrial disputes
Why is it always the unions. why not the bosses, many of whom are out-of-touch public school twats of the sort we’ve seen in government for the past seven years? Workers don’t go on strike without due provocation, they lose income when they do.

Miner's struck for excess wage rises. What about the Farm workers on wages far below.
When UK miners went on strike in 1973-4, their pay was around £60 a week. German miners were being paid around £200 a week. With the price of oil quadrupling, ‘market forces’ meant that miners were more valuable. The Tories are supposed to believe in that concept, but of course only when it suits their agenda.

I don’t see how holding down miners’ wages would have helped farm workers, the opposite in fact. I can just hear the Tories saying that if miners don’t get a rise, why should anyone else?

Farm workers whose job was far more dangerous than that of mine workers.
Debatable. Yes, there is a lot of dangerous machinery on farms, but no risk of being killed or trapped underground after an explosion, or of contracting life-shortening respiratory diseases such as pneumoconiosis.

The Unions have no remit to bring down governments by industrial action.
The miners didn’t bring down the government in February 1974. They went on strike for higher wages and Edward Heath, just like the idiotic Theresa May, thought that by calling a snap election he would get a bigger majority. The similarity doesn’t end there. Heath demonised the unions as Communists and tried to portray Harold Wilson as “putty in their hands”, putting distorted pictures of his face in Tory election broadcasts. May concocted some imaginary opponents, both from the EU and inside Parliament, who she claimed were undermining Brexit. Both Tory leaders got what they deserved, although May’s removal from office is progressing more slowly and painfully than Heath's.

In 1984 Arthur Scargill did want to bring down the government, but as documents released after 30 years have confirmed, the miners’ strike of that year was a political one deliberately provoked by Thatcher. She even bought in foreign coal that was more expensive than what could be mined in the UK. At the time, Scargill’s claims about what Thatcher and McGregor were planning to do with the coal industry were dismissed as “scaremongering”. We now know that they were an understatement.

Private enterprise has been with us since ancient times and always will.
Nobody is suggesting that private enterprise is abolished; Jeremy Corbyn is a reformist, not an abolitionist, who would always have been considered middle-of-the-road in Scandinavia. However, capitalism must be controlled and regulated in order to prevent ever-widening inequality, which always results in unsustainable debt and global crises of the magnitude of 1929 and 2007-8. And one way to prevent the growth in inequality is to have stronger trade unions standing up against the exploitation of their members.
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7171
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: What now for Labour? (Part 3)

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum