Jump to content

Licence Fees


Arthur Marshall

Featured Posts

20 hours ago, Goliath said:


yes, of course I do I’m not going to deny that 😃 and I happily pay it. 
But there’s only so much any of us boaters can afford and boaters’ alone cannot pay for the system. 
 

So the general public need to understand they must chip into it more than they currently are, for they are reaping massive benefits for next to nowt. 
If that £1.60 you estimate went to a fiver that would pay the estimated 100 million that’s needed for the canals. 

And CRT will still plead poverty. 

Actually the general public, or taxpayers if you prefer, don't pay a single penny because there is no such thing as taxpayer's money.

All money originates from the government and the government decides how it is spent.

Nobody ''chips in'', they merely pay whatever taxes the government demands from them through the many forms of taxation.

I've heard people say ''why should I pay for something I don't use?'', well they simply don't.

 

Keith

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

Actually the general public, or taxpayers if you prefer, don't pay a single penny because there is no such thing as taxpayer's money.

All money originates from the government and the government decides how it is spent.

Nobody ''chips in'', they merely pay whatever taxes the government demands from them through the many forms of taxation.

I've heard people say ''why should I pay for something I don't use?'', well they simply don't.

 

Keith

 

Er? I have money. It goes jingle. I am a taxpayer. I write a cheque to HMRC. The Government gets it. It's taxpayer's money.

An entire nation went to war for "no taxation without representation".

Just because it isn't hypothecated, doesn't stop it being our money.

And money doesn't originate from a government, either. It's basically a concept whose value depends purely on general confidence, over which a government, as we have recently seen, has little control.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Er? I have money. It goes jingle. I am a taxpayer. I write a cheque to HMRC. The Government gets it. It's taxpayer's money.

An entire nation went to war for "no taxation without representation".

Just because it isn't hypothecated, doesn't stop it being our money.

And money doesn't originate from a government, either. It's basically a concept whose value depends purely on general confidence, over which a government, as we have recently seen, has little control.

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I believe everything I see on YouTube. Everything on YouTube is true. That's why it's on YouTube. It wouldn't be true if it wasn't on YouTube. Sometimes, I get the truth from Facebook, but mostly I just watch YouTube, because everything on it is true.

https://youtube.com/@Tanstaafl49

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Looking further ahead, we are proposing to carry out a consultation in 2023 to gather feedback on how boat licence pricing might look over the next ten years to support the long-term future of the waterway network.

Richard Parry continued: “Boat licences account for around an eighth (12%) of the Trust’s annual income and help fund some of the vast amount of work necessary to keep the waterways safe and navigable; as we set out in our annual Boater Report, our core network expenditure is around four times what we raise from boating. Nevertheless, with our Government grant frozen since 2021, and currently undecided after 2027, this income is more critical than ever. We are doing all we can to generate more income from other sources where possible albeit with the difficult economic environment also affecting investment returns.”

 

From Damian’s Boaters’ update. 
 

So maybe more increases in the licence fees to come? 

  • Horror 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Goliath said:

“Looking further ahead, we are proposing to carry out a consultation in 2023 to gather feedback on how boat licence pricing might look over the next ten years to support the long-term future of the waterway network.

Richard Parry continued: “Boat licences account for around an eighth (12%) of the Trust’s annual income and help fund some of the vast amount of work necessary to keep the waterways safe and navigable; as we set out in our annual Boater Report, our core network expenditure is around four times what we raise from boating. Nevertheless, with our Government grant frozen since 2021, and currently undecided after 2027, this income is more critical than ever. We are doing all we can to generate more income from other sources where possible albeit with the difficult economic environment also affecting investment returns.”

 

From Damian’s Boaters’ update. 
 

So maybe more increases in the licence fees to come? 

 

 

 

Thin End Of The Wedge.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

Thin End Of The Wedge.jpg

I think CRT might be using a wedge with a steeper gradient 😟

 

 

wasn’t there a driving advert that had a Malcolm? “We’ll done Malcolm!” or something similar. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

 

 

Throughout the video he's saying that the taxpayer has not right to be claiming this tax money as taxpayers' money. At the end he says we should hold the government to account for what it does with its money, government money. and we should make it clear that we don't like what the government does with its money, if we have a criticism. 

 

Well, if he says the money is not ours, the taxpayers', how could we have a right to be telling the government what to do with its money? It's patently stupid to be saying we have a right to be criticising the use of the tax-collected money, and also to be saying it isn't ours in the first place. 

 

The video is rubbish. 

 

Tax is paid as a proportion of the money that is generated by the worker. It is then right to criticise what the government does with money taken from the wage that was generated by work and time given by the worker. The worker has lost control of the money paid in tax, but there's no reason to think the money can be disassociated from the individual that generated it. 

 

And people do criticise a government, because taxpayer or not, they are answerable to the voter. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

Throughout the video he's saying that the taxpayer has not right to be claiming this tax money as taxpayers' money. At the end he says we should hold the government to account for what it does with its money, government money. and we should make it clear that we don't like what the government does with its money, if we have a criticism. 

 

Well, if he says the money is not ours, the taxpayers', how could we have a right to be telling the government what to do with its money? It's patently stupid to be saying we have a right to be criticising the use of the tax-collected money, and also to be saying it isn't ours in the first place. 

 

The video is rubbish. 

 

Tax is paid as a proportion of the money that is generated by the worker. It is then right to criticise what the government does with money taken from the wage that was generated by work and time given by the worker. The worker has lost control of the money paid in tax, but there's no reason to think the money can be disassociated from the individual that generated it. 

 

And people do criticise a government, because taxpayer or not, they are answerable to the voter. 

 

 

 

 

 

It's no good arguing logically with people who get their truths from YouTube. It's like someone said, when people stop believing in religion,  they don't suddenly become rational, they just believe any old rubbish instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

Throughout the video he's saying that the taxpayer has not right to be claiming this tax money as taxpayers' money. At the end he says we should hold the government to account for what it does with its money, government money. and we should make it clear that we don't like what the government does with its money, if we have a criticism. 

 

Well, if he says the money is not ours, the taxpayers', how could we have a right to be telling the government what to do with its money? It's patently stupid to be saying we have a right to be criticising the use of the tax-collected money, and also to be saying it isn't ours in the first place. 

 

The video is rubbish. 

 

Tax is paid as a proportion of the money that is generated by the worker. It is then right to criticise what the government does with money taken from the wage that was generated by work and time given by the worker. The worker has lost control of the money paid in tax, but there's no reason to think the money can be disassociated from the individual that generated it. 

 

And people do criticise a government, because taxpayer or not, they are answerable to the voter. 

 

 

 

 

 

The view that money belongs to the Gov has nothing to do about how the Gov comes into office, it applied just as much to self appointed dictators.

 

It is also about the economics of money - a concept that is a manufactured item, more especially so since the departure from a gold standard and yet more so with cryptocurrency and also the closure of bank branches. Money is generally nothing more than an entry in a computer file - somewhere. It has no intrinsic value other than that it (provably) exists.

 

Without a Gov, it is hard to have a stable currency - just look at the performance of crypto thus far. In that sense, your money is yours only by the leave of Gov (or central bank) - they can change its exchangeable value at the drop of a hat, which is what the Truss administration discovered unwittingly and to their cost.

 

Of course the theory is that Gov's are accountable through the ballot box (if available) by revolt (if not). However, it is never that simple and, as we are seeing now, even supposedly simple matters such as Brexit, are as much to do with emotion as with economics etc when it comes to voting patterns.

 

You may well be right when you say that people work as part of an agreed exchange but in our current society that contract is based on being paid in a currency owned by the Gov (or central bank) No longer do we have tommy shops or tied cottages (or whatever) as the 'real' basis of such contracts.

 

The right to hold a Gov to account is not at all related to the use of money - as it stands the only right we have is the possession of actual goods and at a personal level the removal of such goods would be considered theft, but that does not, in effect, extend to Gov's. As with anything else that a Gov does (like running a health service) I have the right to hold them to account for it and I will hold them to account for their skill at managing the money system.

 

Too often people claim that they have aright to something but then struggle to justify that right in something fundamental. The Gov even holds the right to change that - see the oft repeated attempt to change our 'human rights' (to the benefit of specific groups). Many think that they have a right to free speech and to demonstrate but, as we now see, that right is only owned by he Gov who will change it if it suits their electoral impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

The view that money belongs to the Gov has nothing to do about how the Gov comes into office, it applied just as much to self appointed dictators.

 

It is also about the economics of money - a concept that is a manufactured item, more especially so since the departure from a gold standard and yet more so with cryptocurrency and also the closure of bank branches. Money is generally nothing more than an entry in a computer file - somewhere. It has no intrinsic value other than that it (provably) exists.

 

Without a Gov, it is hard to have a stable currency - just look at the performance of crypto thus far. In that sense, your money is yours only by the leave of Gov (or central bank) - they can change its exchangeable value at the drop of a hat, which is what the Truss administration discovered unwittingly and to their cost.

 

Of course the theory is that Gov's are accountable through the ballot box (if available) by revolt (if not). However, it is never that simple and, as we are seeing now, even supposedly simple matters such as Brexit, are as much to do with emotion as with economics etc when it comes to voting patterns.

 

You may well be right when you say that people work as part of an agreed exchange but in our current society that contract is based on being paid in a currency owned by the Gov (or central bank) No longer do we have tommy shops or tied cottages (or whatever) as the 'real' basis of such contracts.

 

The right to hold a Gov to account is not at all related to the use of money - as it stands the only right we have is the possession of actual goods and at a personal level the removal of such goods would be considered theft, but that does not, in effect, extend to Gov's. As with anything else that a Gov does (like running a health service) I have the right to hold them to account for it and I will hold them to account for their skill at managing the money system.

 

Too often people claim that they have aright to something but then struggle to justify that right in something fundamental. The Gov even holds the right to change that - see the oft repeated attempt to change our 'human rights' (to the benefit of specific groups). Many think that they have a right to free speech and to demonstrate but, as we now see, that right is only owned by he Gov who will change it if it suits their electoral impact.

 

The government is not a private concern. It cannot detach itself from its place in society. The contributors to that are the taxpayer. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/12/2022 at 22:46, Allan(nb Albert) said:

That was my point. Having sold off BWML and moved to an auction system for the most desirable of its 3,600 remaining moorings, it is difficult for CRT to increase its revenue further.

Is it? Any auction determines what the second highest bidder is willing to pay, with the winning bid being one bid increment above that. It doesn't show how much higher the winning bidder would have been prepared to pay if other bidders had stayed in. 

I reckon that if CRT were just to impose an across the board increase in mooring fees to somewhat higher than auction winning prices boaters would grumble but most would just pay up. And since the NAA contribution is based on local mooring fees CRT would get a corresponding increase in that income as well (paid for by an increase in marina mooring fees).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Is it? Any auction determines what the second highest bidder is willing to pay, with the winning bid being one bid increment above that. It doesn't show how much higher the winning bidder would have been prepared to pay if other bidders had stayed in. 

I reckon that if CRT were just to impose an across the board increase in mooring fees to somewhat higher than auction winning prices boaters would grumble but most would just pay up. And since the NAA contribution is based on local mooring fees CRT would get a corresponding increase in that income as well (paid for by an increase in marina mooring fees).

I suppose a Dutch Auction might realise a higher price.

For the last year or so, Defra have been suggesting ways in which CRT might increase its income. They have noted that CRT's mooring revenue has increased by more than inflation in the past and suggested that CRT can increase it even more in future projections -

Quote

C&RT also commented on the moorings income, where there was not significant growth and the income remained steady about one-third of the income from licence fees. C&RT explained their auction process for the most popular for moorings to capture the maximum economic rent (i.e., what customers were willing to pay), which made it unrealistic to plan for above-inflation growth.


With regard to CRT's interim licence fee increase, there is no evidence that this was suggested by DEFRA. However, it might be CRT attempting to demonstrate to Defra that they were doing everything possible to increase income.



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, MtB said:

"You simply cannot believe everything on the internet."

 

~ Abraham Lincoln ~

 

Tinternet is like a newspaper. Half of what you read isn't true. Trouble is, you don't know which half. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

The government is not a private concern. It cannot detach itself from its place in society. The contributors to that are the taxpayer. 

 

 

 

Funny, that's exactly what the tories have been doing since 2010.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having just read this entire thread (whilst putting off going out into the dismal weather outside), most points appear to have been made, and gone over several times, Nonetheless, there is perhaps a slightly different take on the situation which could be considered.

 

CaRT has a primary revenue stream from government which will, in the current economic climate, be decreasing in terms of buying power. This makes up a large proportion of its total income, so it has choices.

1. Do less.

2. Increase its income from the sources it has control over (where it makes a charge which is not regulated) to make up the shortfall.

3. Take lower cost approaches.

 

There is a limit to 1. but, as we approach 2027 there would certainly be the possibility that those in decision-making positions could adopt a different strategy depending on what they thought their own future held beyond that date. For example, if you believed that there would be a generous increase in the available funding from DEFRA but management of the waterways would be put out to tender, you would have a strong incentive as the incumbent to demonstrate your competence over the next five years to secure the next contract. However, if you believed that your own future was doomed anyway, you would have no incentive to invest in maintenance and every incentive to take what you could personally in salary and pension contribution before you were kicked out. My own experience in similar cyclically funded businesses is that the approach does vary in this polar fashion depending on the prevailing mindset.

 

2. This is the big one. CaRT has commercial freedom and market forces will prevail. Boaters are a semi-captive market (there are alternative waters but they are not without significant consequence) so it is able to claim market forces and increase charges as far as it thinks will achieve a net increase. That means if the total number of boats decreases because of increased costs but enough continue to pay that the total income increases it is worth doing. I suspect that whilst licence and mooring fee increases will be justified against inflation, they will actually bear little relation to it in real terms - being based on what they think enough people will stand. I suspect we will see a series of stepped increases continuing the pattern of the last year and in the background CaRT will be monitoring the effect, with the increases stopping when the number of unpaid licences means a net decrease in income (taking into account the increased cost of policing the system). There are also options for new charges. The principle of paid for visitor moorings has already been established and could easily be extended to other honey-pot sites. Ultimately, you could extend the principle to all short-term visitor moorings - anywhere where the towpath has been improved and rings fitted could become chargeable. Payment by app against licence number requires no infrastructure and if the fines for non-payment are high enough then that covers the cost of policing it (the model used by NCP for car parks). One person with a car working a round as an evening/night shift could cover a lot of areas. There are other facilities which could also be made chargeable - changing rubbish and elsan points to key-card entry for example, in the name of monitoring abuse but actually to allocate a charge to a card. These all increase charges for boaters but with some correlation between payment and use which makes it seem 'fairer'. There are specific boating user groups which I sure CaRT would love to find ways to charge more - particularly continuous cruisers, especially those who are actually tied to a single location for work and school reasons. Legitimising their pattern of use in a way which enables charging them significantly more has to be more attractive than playing a cat and mouse game of trying to prevent it.

However, the big potential income sources are those relating to non-boating users. The direct customers who currently pay CaRT for the use of their facilities currently include ground renters for networks (gas, electricity, data) and water abstraction and discharge. These are very much a captive market who can expect substantial rises I suspect, because they really do not have a choice.

There is another set of beneficiaries which I am not sure where the current cost assignation goes, but I suspect is assigned to the DEFRA grant. This covers the intersection between waterways and transport/developed land, for example road bridges, aqueducts, areas where the canal acts as a flood defence or where its breach would result in flooding of something other than farmland. Maintaining this infrastructure has an assignable value related to the access it enables or the damage it prevents. Whilst the DEFRA grant will not increase, there is clearly a case for engagement with landowners and local councils around shared costs - relying on insurance is not going to cover the real cost of disruption and people generally know that so it becomes worth considering the value as an affordability question. Coincidentally, I witness this regularly on a non-navigable waterway at the end of our garden where a Dutch ford crosses a river. Debris flows down in time of flood and hangs up against the railings. If the council clears the debris (maintenance) then in a major flood the water overtops the railings and flows freely. If they decide not to undertake clearance then the debris builds up over successive minor floods and when there is a major flood the water pressure carries the railings away, the road is closed and a substantial bill for completely renewing them ensues. Clearly there are different budget holders for maintenance and renewal and you can tell who has the upper hand at a given point in time by whether the debris is/is not cleared in time. A few floods over residential areas and long-term closures of major transport routes across waterways would probably shift the position significantly. Water management - both inflow, outflow and flood prevention all require some level of dredging so that cost is relevant to them as well as boaters.

 

3. Volunteers. CaRT has already woken up to the use of volunteers and has realised that increased training allows more work to be done, e.g. cutting back on the offside for example. If you look at the WRG model you can see that, with training, there are few activities which cannot be undertaken by volunteers. The UK has a very high labour cost so increasing the range of tasks which volunteers can undertake makes financial sense. They tend to work more slowly than paid labour, partly because they don't tend to want to work full-time and partly because they are not obliged to work or get fired, so extended tea-breaks etc. are their choice, but there is a large potential free workforce out there at the moment in the category of active and able-bodied retired who may have time on their hands. Thinking radically, why can't volunteers build lock gates, undertake the lengthsman role, clear debris, fell trees to reduce cutting closures, undertake minor masonry repairs during a stoppage where a pound is drained, etc? Reduced cost alternatives (provocative this one). What is the priority - function or heritage? When the Avon was re-opened it had lock chambers rebuilt in reinforced concrete. You can pull out a damaged lock chamber with an excavator, shutter and pour and have the whole thing rebuilt in a week. You can do the same thing with a main line rail bridge - see the Stroudwater. There are welded steel lock gates from the 1970s which are still perfectly serviceable, considerably longer than you can expect from a wooden one. In the days when wooden gates were repaired then you could get comparable lives but now they are generally left to deteriorate until they need replacement this is no longer the case. Is it acceptable to end up with concrete and steel locks, bridges and spillweirs? Is that preferable to closure or inability to navigate for extended periods? Prioritised activities. Can you reasonably state that because boats now have engines there is no need for a connection between the towpath and the waterway except at dedicated moorings? The towpath is no longer a towpath, it is in fact a parallel footpath which is not actually required by boaters. This would mean you don't need to carry out any maintenance in the way of mowing except a single strip for walkers, and trees could grow along the water's edge except where they impede navigation. It seems to cause a lot of complaints but, say there are 100 boat movements a day on a particular stretch and they all travel 10 miles on average (very modest). That means you only need 10% of the towpath to ever be cut - and if you want to moor somewhere else, what if it became the assumption you would have to carry our own equipment to cut back your mooring? How about if in parallel, dredging was focused on maintaining a proper depth channel 14' wide across the whole narrowbeam network, with no expectation that you could get in to the sides? It would increase the mileage dredged, at the expense of width - aligned with better navigation but not with better mooring (go back to an assumption that you will use a gangplank).

 

In summary, ,my point on all the above is that there are combinations of options, some of which users can vote with their feet over, others which they will have no choice over. I think we have to accept that there will be a compromise - we are going to pay more and get less, but whether the 'more' and 'less' are acceptable will be very much down to the individual.

 

Alec

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

The view that money belongs to the Gov has nothing to do about how the Gov comes into office, it applied just as much to self appointed dictators.

 

It is also about the economics of money - a concept that is a manufactured item, more especially so since the departure from a gold standard and yet more so with cryptocurrency and also the closure of bank branches. Money is generally nothing more than an entry in a computer file - somewhere. It has no intrinsic value other than that it (provably) exists.

 

Without a Gov, it is hard to have a stable currency - just look at the performance of crypto thus far. In that sense, your money is yours only by the leave of Gov (or central bank) - they can change its exchangeable value at the drop of a hat, which is what the Truss administration discovered unwittingly and to their cost.

 

Of course the theory is that Gov's are accountable through the ballot box (if available) by revolt (if not). However, it is never that simple and, as we are seeing now, even supposedly simple matters such as Brexit, are as much to do with emotion as with economics etc when it comes to voting patterns.

 

You may well be right when you say that people work as part of an agreed exchange but in our current society that contract is based on being paid in a currency owned by the Gov (or central bank) No longer do we have tommy shops or tied cottages (or whatever) as the 'real' basis of such contracts.

 

The right to hold a Gov to account is not at all related to the use of money - as it stands the only right we have is the possession of actual goods and at a personal level the removal of such goods would be considered theft, but that does not, in effect, extend to Gov's. As with anything else that a Gov does (like running a health service) I have the right to hold them to account for it and I will hold them to account for their skill at managing the money system.

 

Too often people claim that they have aright to something but then struggle to justify that right in something fundamental. The Gov even holds the right to change that - see the oft repeated attempt to change our 'human rights' (to the benefit of specific groups). Many think that they have a right to free speech and to demonstrate but, as we now see, that right is only owned by he Gov who will change it if it suits their electoral impact.

Neither the government nor the central bank changed the value of money recently. The "markets"did it. The only value money has is the confidence that it will buy a certain amount. That's a sort of consensus of all sorts of things, from what people choose to buy or not buy to government policies on all sorts of things, and whether outsiders think the people in charge of a country are competent. If the aforesaid confidence runs out, you end up buying a loaf (if you can find one) with a wheelbarrow full of fivers.

It's just a handy concept, based on usefulness, and once you stop believing in it, just like when you stop believing in fairies, it stops working. And you're back to barter.

This is probably a discussion for the current affairs bit, really.

As far as rights go, much the same. No-one has any, really. There's just a consensus that it would be nice if people had, say, food or housing, or, for that matter, life. But not everyone believes  the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Goliath said:

“Looking further ahead, we are proposing to carry out a consultation in 2023 to gather feedback on how boat licence pricing might look over the next ten years to support the long-term future of the waterway network.

Richard Parry continued: “Boat licences account for around an eighth (12%) of the Trust’s annual income and help fund some of the vast amount of work necessary to keep the waterways safe and navigable; as we set out in our annual Boater Report, our core network expenditure is around four times what we raise from boating. Nevertheless, with our Government grant frozen since 2021, and currently undecided after 2027, this income is more critical than ever. We are doing all we can to generate more income from other sources where possible albeit with the difficult economic environment also affecting investment returns.”

 

From Damian’s Boaters’ update. 
 

So maybe more increases in the licence fees to come? 

Get rid off Parry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Goliath said:


🤷‍♀️don’t reckon it’d make any difference 

 

 

Can't see that it would. The whole point of hiving off BW was to get the canals out of public ownership. I don't think anyone cares much about us boaters,  evidence being Michael Fabricant apparently being our chief government supporter. No-one's taken him seriously for years.

So licences will go up, so will unlicensed boats, the system will carry on falling to bits slowly, Parry & Co will get their bonuses, pensions and retire. I'll probably be dead by then, though, so it won't matter.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Can't see that it would. The whole point of hiving off BW was to get the canals out of public ownership. I don't think anyone cares much about us boaters,  evidence being Michael Fabricant apparently being our chief government supporter. No-one's taken him seriously for years.

So licences will go up, so will unlicensed boats, the system will carry on falling to bits slowly, Parry & Co will get their bonuses, pensions and retire. I'll probably be dead by then, though, so it won't matter.

^^^^^^^^^^^ exactly this, I am seriously thinking of giving up boating whilst boat prices are at a high point! If I could move my boat to the Broads that would work but it's to big, so it might be sell and buy down there.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, peterboat said:

^^^^^^^^^^^ exactly this, I am seriously thinking of giving up boating whilst boat prices are at a high point! If I could move my boat to the Broads that would work but it's to big, so it might be sell and buy down there.

If you can sell it with your mooring you will be laughing all the way to the bank, as there’s nothing available in the area👍

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
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 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.