Several boats set to be removed from Bridgwater & Taunton Canal

[IanD]

Just now, Goliath said:

Walsall Basin would fit that bill. 
 

So let people moor there, nobody else wants to so who is it causing a problem for?

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It would cause major problems because as with everything else there would be people who were specifically looking for loopholes. 

 

How would it worth with local authorities and such awkward things as council tax ?

 

I don't think it can work. 

So if they look for loopholes, redefine where the "honeypots" are.

 

It's impossible to define any system that is completely proof against fiddling, but it can't be that hard to define one that's better than the mess we have now... 😞

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

So let people moor there, nobody else wants to so who is it causing a problem for?

People are allowed to moor there. 

 

[IanD]

Just now, Goliath said:

People are allowed to moor there. 

 

Without it being a home mooring, and without breaking the CC 14-day rules?

 

I meant that there's no need to check/enforce in places like this, as I'm sure you understood full well... 😉

[magnetman]

16 minutes ago, IanD said:

... one that's better than the mess we have now... 

😞

Maybe in reality there isn't actually much of a problem. In the modern age of social and antisocial media services, tapatalk, smartphones etc there is more of a tendency for people to say it is all buggered when it actually isn't. 

 

Interesting to watch what happens. I don't think much will happen although would advocate very significant impact changes myself. 

 

Its probably fine and everyone can carry on boating in their chosen way. 

 

[Ronaldo47]

16 minutes ago, magnetman said:

"Satisfy the board" seem to be the most interesting combination of words in the whole of the 1995 Act. 

 

Its all a bit blurry but does seem to come down to this basic requirement. I don't know anything about law and would not wish to be an ultracrepidarian but it seems to me that this gives the Board (now The Trust) significant powers to direct behaviour. 

 

The principle of  "Wednesbury unreasonsbleness" ( you can find a summary of the case via Google) sets out guidance regarding what is reasonable exercise of discretion by public bodies.

 

The case permitting Hansard to be relied on, is Pepper vs Hart [1992] UKHL3. Only statements by ministers or the promoter if the bill can be relied on, and then only where there is some ambiguity or lack of clarity. In P v H, a minister had explicitly given an example of a fringe benefit that would not be taxable that was absolutely identical with the case in suit, and so held aganst the Inland Revenue.  In the absence of any such statements, the letter of the law is followed, even if this leads to a bizzare result. That happened in a patent case some years ago, where a quirk in the legislation (which was subsequently amended) allowed a previously legally-published document to become unpublished. 

 

That was my understanding of the law when it was my day job, but I've been retired more than a decade and, in law, the goalposts are always changing. 

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

 

In case you haven't noticed, I'm not arguing with you about the law -- I was wrong, you knew better and were right. OK? Can we stop the character assasination right here before anyone else jumps on the bandwagon?

 

If you think getting one thing wrong undermines everything someone says then there's no point debating with you -- do you really want me to search through the CWDF archives and find something you said wrong (because I bet you did at some point...), and then say that this means that your posts on this subject are therefore discredited? Everyone makes mistakes -- unless you're claiming that you're perfect... 😉

 

I now have a clearer understanding of the law (so thank you for that...), and still think it's possible to come up with a better system than we have now. I'll try and explain -- and if I'm wrong please point out where, but let's keep the discussion away from personal motivations/reputations and stick to the facts... 🙂

 

There are two separate but linked things going on here, one is license conditions -- especially for CCers/CMers -- and the second is where mooring is permitted and for how long.

 

The CC exemption was introduced for what seemed good reasons at the time, so that those who roamed around the system were not forced to find and pay for a home mooring that they never used. The test for this -- "satisfying the board" -- was the 14-day rule about moving between several different places (not just ping-ponging back and forth) over a significant range, but nothing defining the exact terms was ever put into law, it was deliberately left woolly, presumably with the idea that the rules could be changed.

 

If a boat claims to be CCing but isn't -- doesn't "satisfy the board" -- then CART can refuse to renew their license, and then start the long and drawn-out enforcement proceedings leading to boat removal.

 

This worked fine until the last 20 years or so -- maybe more so since the 2008 financial crisis and stupid housing costs -- as more and more people decided to use the canals as a cheap place to live, move as little as possible, and stay near work or school. This was specifically excluded by the CART CC rules but then under "think of the children" pressure from the NBTA and others they were unwise enough to come up with an unofficial rule that effectively endorsed this for families with children, but not others -- yes this is discrimination but it's not illegal.

 

The result in popular areas like London and the Western K&A has been an increasing number of "CMers", end-to-end (or double-moored) boats (and more and more wideboats) with many overstaying as long as they can and moving as little as possible -- if it all -- including on visitor moorings, which has made such areas difficult to access for the "real CCers" (or any other boaters like hirers) for who the "CC exemption" was intended in the first place. Meanwhile out in the sticks where there are hardly any boats "real CCers" (not the "honeypot-squatters") still have to follow the 14-day rule -- which is seen as unfair, what's the point in moving? -- and CART still has to check that they do, which takes staff and money.

 

CART checking and monitoring of boat locations doesn't work very well, partly because it has to cover the whole 2000 mile system, and enforcement is ineffective, so the CC rules are widely flouted by CMers.

 

Am I right so far?

 

Meanwhile CART is cash-strapped and needs to find ways of getting more money, and one of these is via the license fee. I'm pretty sure they also want to do something to stop the growth of CMers who are clogging up honeypots, and probably also discourage wideboats by making them more expensive -- because these are very popular with almost-never-moving-CMers since they offer a lot more space for only a little more money. This is what the "license fee consultation" was all about. A lot of the problems can be traced back to the CCing rule which has encouraged CMers, which was not the original intention but has ended up that way, and the cost of monitoring and enforcing this over the whole canal system -- which is why the consultation also mentions the possibility of a "CC surcharge" to recoup these costs.

 

Agreed?

 

So what can CART do to get more money and discourage CMers, and restore the CC exemption back to something like its original purpose?

 

One proposal was a "CC surcharge" -- which might have to be labelled as a "home mooring discount" to stay within the law, but the effect is the same. IIRC the very old PDF (which was shot down in flames) suggested 2.5x the fee (+150%), more recently 2x has been suggested (+100%) -- these could mean (for example) doubling the license fee compared to today but offering a 50% "home mooring discount", which would keep the license fee unchanged for those with home moorings but double it for CCers and CMers. River-only fees would stay at 60% of canal+river, as now.

 

This could be seen as being unfair on "real CCers" since their fees double. One of the justifications for this put forward by CART is the extra costs of checking and enforcing the CC rules -- so is there a way to help out "real CCers"?

 

Why not stop CC-rule-checking outside popular honeypot areas (e.g towns/cities/junctions), so boats can stay where they want for as long as they want "out in the sticks"? The apocalyptic "the canals will be overrun with boats" prediction is unlikely to come true, because not that many boaters -- and very few CMers -- want to moor out in the middle of nowhere with no facilities, they almost all want to moor near civilisation.

 

Can you see any legal reasons why this cannot be done? (assuming the logistics can be worked out)

 

The disadvantage is that it does go completely against CARTs policy on online/EOG moorings because boats can then moor anywhere "out in the sticks" -- but is this really such a big problem, given the size of the system and the small number of boats who would do this? (and they'll still be paying 2x the fee of boats with a home mooring -- a farm mooring would be cheaper). If the CCers already spend a lot of their time moored in remote spots the number of boats moored there doesn't even change, it just means they don't have to artificially shuffle round every 14 days.

 

The advantage is that all the checking/enforcement which is currently spread around 2000 miles of canals can be focused on the much smaller (100 miles?) of "honeypot areas", so it should be much more effective.

 

It might also be possible to offer "real CCers" a discount, but make them have to provide the proof of movement instead of using CART checkers -- for example, regular geotagged photos from a phone registered to the license holder. These could even be checked using software instead of real people. Yes a smartphone is needed, but these are dirt cheap nowadays -- and if you don't want one, you don't get the discount... 😉

 

I'm not saying these ideas don't have disadvantages because there is no perfect solution, but it seem to me that this would put the canals in a considerably better place than they are today.

 

Any genuine criticism of why they can't/won't work is fine by me, I'm not claiming to know everything about all this -- but it would be nice to keep any debate factual rather than descending into accusations and abuse... 😉

A lot of the longer lines of almost-permanently-moored boats are 'out in the sticks'. The main criterion is access to a road with somewhere to park roadside.

 

It may come as a shock to some that many of the no-home-mooring boaters actually have regular jobs.

 

The problem is that CaRT have stated that this may be incompatible with CC rules but they have little or no effective means of enforcing that view.

 

As an aside, the law does not require a car to have a home parking space!

[IanD]

39 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Maybe in reality there isn't actually much of a problem. In the modern age of social and antisocial media services, tapatalk, smartphones etc there is more of a tendency for people to say it is all buggered when it actually isn't. 

 

Interesting to watch what happens. I don't think much will happen although would advocate very significant impact changes myself. 

 

Its probably fine and everyone can carry on boating in their chosen way. 

 

 

In reality there are more (and expanding) parts of the system where CMing *is* a problem as more and more almost-never-moving boats appear -- and that's based on direct observation and travelling round the canals, including trying to find moorings in "honeypot" areas in the summer, not just sitting at a PC 😉

 

Unsurprisingly there are plenty of areas where this *isn't* a problem, more specifically those where not many people want to moor/stay, and they don't have a problem with moored boats. Which was precisely my point...

Edited July 8, 2023 by IanD

[Mike Todd]

5 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

 

What I said was not a personal insult, it is the real world of holding a debate. Given your genuine expertise in other areas I would half expect you will have been an expert witness in your field, as I have been in mine. The fact you didn't know that the law requires CRT to grant a licence to someone with no home mooring, and this is so fundamental to the argument, means I wonder if anything else you say on the matter of moorings can be trusted or whether it's based on the same lack of understanding and information. The relevance of the expert witness role is that if, as I imagine you have, you have ever been in that role then you will understand that saying something so obviously wrong you have undermined your own credibility - then that is a cardinal sin, because one has discredited everything else one says.

 

On the 14 day rule, again read the relevant section - British Waterways Act 1995, Sec. 17 (3)(c)(ii) (quoting from Iain S's post)

 

The 14 rule DOES apply everywhere  unless "such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances" is invoked - until tested in the courts it's for CRT to decide what is reasonable in the circumstances. Whilst CRT have (in my direct experience) accepted mechanical failure (six weeks at Great Haywood) and snow (three weeks at All Cannings) on the basis the first makes movement impractical and the second unsafe, CRT are well aware of the risk of declaring "it's not that busy" as being a reasonable circumstance - they have accepted that moving the boat may be impractical or unsafe, but not that moving the boat is unnecessary.  

 

And that's what you are not getting - you can (in my career I frequently have) dance on the head of a pin with regards to the law, but both sides can do it - I had an awful lot of respect for Nigel Moore, and miss him greatly from these debates, but the argument he made (and I tentatively agree with it) has never been tested. It amounts to that CRT could put the overall licence fee up and then offer a discount for home moorings. However, like so many things if they actually did this it could be tested in court, and if they put the basic cost up so much that it became that de facto CC licences were not available, or even that someone could claim that was the effect, then it almost certainly would be tested with the risk that the courts could decide that "This can not have been what parliament intended" - given the expense of the litigation, the long drawn out process, and the uncertainty of the outcome, they're not going to try it - a premium, yes, a large one - no. CRT are not just fettered by the law, but by what is worth a court battle to get there.  

 

And incidentally there were boaters with no home mooring prior to 1995 - that was how this started, boaters finding that the 1995 act would mean they had to have a home mooring when previously they had not, and lobbying for the now well known section 17(3) (c)

I think that the 14 day rule is also modified by CaRT's right to establish such shorter periods as may be needed for the good management of the system ie Visitor Moorings, typing 1 - 3 days.

[magnetman]

5 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

 

It may come as a shock to some that many of the no-home-mooring boaters actually have regular jobs.

 

 

One assumes this is the case or movement would be more frequent. 

 

I remember back in the late 90s BW publishing guidance and describing 'this is what continuous cruising is not'  which in a number of different ways was quite a hilarious way of putting it. 

 

This included working and having children as non-excuses for failure to navigate in good faith (Bona Fide) 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

A lot of the longer lines of almost-permanently-moored boats are 'out in the sticks'. The main criterion is access to a road with somewhere to park roadside.

 

It may come as a shock to some that many of the no-home-mooring boaters actually have regular jobs.

 

The problem is that CaRT have stated that this may be incompatible with CC rules but they have little or no effective means of enforcing that view.

 

As an aside, the law does not require a car to have a home parking space!

 

Maybe "out in the sticks" was the wrong term -- how about "places with plenty of free space to moor boats"?

 

The key point should be whether moorers are causing a problem for other boaters who might also want to visit or moor there -- in other words, are they behaving selfishly, or "towpath squatting"?

 

If there's plenty of space, no problem. If the banks are completely full of boats, more of a problem but you can sometimes breast up if needed and room permits. If said boats are double-moored and also occupying all the guest/visitor/lock moorings, big problem.

 

On your last point -- in Japanese cities it does, you can't buy/own a car unless you can prove you have a parking space... 😉

Edited July 8, 2023 by IanD

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

On your last point -- in Japanese cities it does, you can't buy/own a car unless you can prove you have a parking space... 😉

 

Exactly the type of comment you make that gets up people's noses. Yes of course you are correct, so you score a point (of sorts), but what the hell does this have to do with boating on canals in the UK?

 

Answer - nothing.

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, M_JG said:

 

It is 'an' answer but there would be a huge backlash I suspect and if hundreds of boaters objected and refused to have such a device fitted what to CRT do? And how would they monitor if devices had been tampered with?

 

They dont appear to be able to successfully enforce the rules now, I think they would fail miserably trying to successfully 'tag' every boat.

As the device would be tracked 24/7 in its memory waiting to be uploaded unless they broke the seal I mentioned and took it somewhere by towpath it would show easily.  Boats don't normally move by road a lot.

 

Being a little more controversial I am sure some sort of agreement could be worked into access agreements about boats showing an untampered device.  They could be fixed to the outside of the boat.

 

The problem with the voluntary system mentioned for phones is it would be too easy to fake the results but as it would be voluntary cheating would be less likely.  Perhaps a discount of a good amount would encourage uptake.

[Arthur Marshall]

4 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Being a little more controversial I am sure some sort of agreement could be worked into access agreements about boats showing an untampered device.  They could be fixed to the outside of the boat.

 

The problem with the voluntary system mentioned for phones is it would be too easy to fake the results but as it would be voluntary cheating would be less likely.  Perhaps a discount of a good amount would encourage uptake.

Bet they wouldn't stay there long...

Edited July 8, 2023 by Arthur Marshall

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, Jerra said:

As the device would be tracked 24/7 in its memory waiting to be uploaded unless they broke the seal I mentioned and took it somewhere by towpath it would show easily.  Boats don't normally move by road a lot.

 

Being a little more controversial I am sure some sort of agreement could be worked into access agreements about boats showing an untampered device.  They could be fixed to the outside of the boat.

 

The problem with the voluntary system mentioned for phones is it would be too easy to fake the results but as it would be voluntary cheating would be less likely.  Perhaps a discount of a good amount would encourage uptake.

 

Faking geotagged photos isn't impossible but whether enough people would be technically capable to do it is debateable, especially given the technophobia of a lot of boaters... 😉

 

If CART wanted to make this work more securely it wouldn't be difficult, they could even provide an app where any picture you took as a "here-I-am" proof was automatically uploaded to a server along with phone and location data -- where the phone (number/IMEI) is registered to the boater. It's hardly rocket science, apps do much more difficult things than this every day. It's the kind of thing my employer does every time I log in to their secure system, verification data is sent to my phone and the system knows where I am and what device I'm using to do the authentication.

 

There's absolutely no need for any kind of dedicated hardware or anything attached to the boat, that's old-school thinking. All you need is a smartphone, a photo of the boat and where it is, an app, and registration of all this with CART.

Edited July 8, 2023 by IanD

[Jerra]

Just now, Arthur Marshall said:

Bet they wouldn't stay there long...

As I said earlier sealed and no evidence of a sealed in place tracker no licence as you can't "satisfy the board".

 

I am also fairly sure it would be possible to develop a cover which was permanently sealed and fixed to the boat.

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Jerra said:

As I said earlier sealed and no evidence of a sealed in place tracker no licence as you can't "satisfy the board".

 

I am also fairly sure it would be possible to develop a cover which was permanently sealed and fixed to the boat.

 

None of this is needed, see previous post.

 

If my employer thinks that a smartphone-based access system like this is secure enough to get into their IT system holding commercially sensitive data worth who-knows-what, I'm sure it would be good enough for CART... 🙂

Edited July 8, 2023 by IanD

[Guest]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

None of this is needed, see previous post.

 

If my employer thinks that a smartphone-based access system like this is secure enough to get into their IT system holding commercially sensitive data worth who-knows-what, I'm sure it would be good enough for CART... 🙂

 

Forcing people to use a smartphone is not going to be accepted by a lot of boaters.

 

Suggesting it can be done is 'pie in the sky' thinking.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

It’s only a matter of time til the canals will be monitored by drones and AI robots. 

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Faking geotagged photos isn't impossible but whether enough people would be technically capable to do it is debateable, especially given the technophobia of a lot of boaters... 😉

 

If CART wanted to make this work more securely it wouldn't be difficult, they could even provide an app where any picture you took as a "here-I-am" proof was automatically uploaded to a server along with phone and location data -- where the phone (number/IMEI) is registered to the boater. It's hardly rocket science, apps do much more difficult things than this every day. It's the kind of thing my employer does every time I log in to their secure system, verification data is sent to my phone and the system knows where I am and what device I'm using to do the authentication.

Does your employer know you spend most your working hours on here?

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Faking geotagged photos isn't impossible but whether enough people would be technically capable to do it is debateable, especially given the technophobia of a lot of boaters... 😉

I hadn't noticed any mention of photos.   I assumed when phones were mentioned it would be a tracking device which recorded the geotag say hourly.  Also if it was as suggested for a start voluntary those volunteering would be less likely to cheat.

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

If CART wanted to make this work more securely it wouldn't be difficult, they could even provide an app where any picture you took as a "here-I-am" proof was automatically uploaded to a server along with phone and location data -- where the phone (number/IMEI) is registered to the boater. It's hardly rocket science, apps do much more difficult things than this every day. It's the kind of thing my employer does every time I log in to their secure system, verification data is sent to my phone and the system knows where I am and what device I'm using to do the authentication.

As I said I hadn't thought of photos I am not sure if whoever posted the idea was thinking terms of photos.  I was thinking more in terms of recording places to show the movemnt.

 

The say every hour geotagging would make faking things a bit of a drag as you would have to walk at a bout three miles an hour to the place you wanted to pretend you had gone to.  Then hide the device for the time you were "moored" there.   Then repeat going further away.

2 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Forcing people to use a smartphone is not going to be accepted by a lot of boaters.

There are a good number of people who don't have smart phones.   I visualise CRT providing the "device" expensive at first but then only needed for boats new to the system.

2 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Suggesting it can be done is 'pie in the sky' thinking.

True of smart phone solutions.

 

I wonder if IanD's employer provides the phones.  Otherwise you can't force people to have one.

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I hadn't noticed any mention of photos.   I assumed when phones were mentioned it would be a tracking device which recorded the geotag say hourly.  Also if it was as suggested for a start voluntary those volunteering would be less likely to cheat.

As I said I hadn't thought of photos I am not sure if whoever posted the idea was thinking terms of photos.  I was thinking more in terms of recording places to show the movemnt.

 

The say every hour geotagging would make faking things a bit of a drag as you would have to walk at a bout three miles an hour to the place you wanted to pretend you had gone to.  Then hide the device for the time you were "moored" there.   Then repeat going further away.

You don't need to geotag/photo every hour, one every few days would prove you were meeting the rules.

 

If the boat has to be shown (and identifiable) in the photo, that stops the cheat you proposed... 😉

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I’d personally hate to be tracked any more than I already am in my day to day life. 
 

The canals, in many respects, are a means of escapism for me. 
I expect they are for others. 
 

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by Goliath

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I hadn't noticed any mention of photos.   I assumed when phones were mentioned it would be a tracking device which recorded the geotag say hourly.  Also if it was as suggested for a start voluntary those volunteering would be less likely to cheat.

As I said I hadn't thought of photos I am not sure if whoever posted the idea was thinking terms of photos.  I was thinking more in terms of recording places to show the movemnt.

 

The say every hour geotagging would make faking things a bit of a drag as you would have to walk at a bout three miles an hour to the place you wanted to pretend you had gone to.  Then hide the device for the time you were "moored" there.   Then repeat going further away.

There are a good number of people who don't have smart phones.   I visualise CRT providing the "device" expensive at first but then only needed for boats new to the system.

True of smart phone solutions.

 

I wonder if IanD's employer provides the phones.  Otherwise you can't force people to have one.

No it's my own phone, but they will also provide company phones. The phone has to be verified before it can be used to access anything, and there are additional restrictions like it has to be locked when not in use and PIN/firgerprint/password protected, and the app (DUO Mobile, if you're interested) checks for this.

 

If boaters don't want to have a phone to prove that they're meeting the rules, they don't get the "discount", or have to prove where they've been by some other means which means a lot more time and effort -- and presumably CART could charge extra for this.

 

8 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I’d personally hate to be tracked any more than I already am in my day to day life. 
 

The canals, in many respects, are a means of escapism for me. 
I expect they are for others. 
 

 

But you'd presumably be happy for a CART employee to walk past your boat daily (or every few days) and record where you are? Because that's what would happen now if the checking system was working properly...

 

How is this any different to you having to take a photo of the boat daily (or every few days) so an app can record where you are?

 

It's not "tracking" like hardware attached to the boat would do, nobody knows where you are between photos -- just like now between checkers walking past...

Edited July 8, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

Smartphone market penetration is very high. These devices store location data unless you are unusually persistent and always turn it off. 

 

It would be an ideal way to monitor movement but I don't know what the legal ram if ications arrr around access by organisations such as the CRT. 

 

The point is they would not be watching you. The requirement is to move every 14 days unless reasonable in the circumstances to another place in a bona fide manner depending on what a place is. 

 

Phone is ideal for this. 

 

Anyone who thinks they are not being tracked on canals is asleep. 

[Jerra]

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

You don't need to geotag/photo every hour, one every few days would prove you were meeting the rules.

That is when cheating becomes easy.   Cycle down the towpath take your photo and cycle back.   Every hour shows movement at the right speed every few days doesn't.

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

If the boat has to be shown (and identifiable) in the photo, that stops the cheat you proposed... 😉

How do you get round :

 

a) boaters who don't have a smartphone or say they don't have a smartphone?

 

b) the reticence of some boaters to being required to do this?

 

What I propose is automatic and goes on in the background with no need for the boater to remember, bother to get off the boat, and take the shot, which would of course need to show the reg number to prove it is the right boat.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

19 minutes ago, IanD said:

No it's my own phone, but they will also provide company phones. The phone has to be verified before it can be used to access anything, and there are additional restrictions like it has to be locked when not in use and PIN/firgerprint/password protected, and the app (DUO Mobile, if you're interested) checks for this.

 

If boaters don't want to have a phone to prove that they're meeting the rules, they don't get the "discount", or have to prove where they've been by some other means which means a lot more time and effort -- and presumably CART could charge extra for this.

 

 

But you'd presumably be happy for a CART employee to walk past your boat daily (or every few days) and record where you are? Because that's what would happen now if the checking system was working properly...

 

How is this any different to you having to take a photo of the boat daily (or every few days) so an app can record where you are?

 

It's not "tracking" like hardware attached to the boat would do, nobody knows where you are between photos -- just like now between checkers walking past...

yes I’m quite happy for CRT to record where I am. 
but I’m not going to do there job for them or take on any extra time or expense to do it. 

 

why do I have to prove anything?

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by Goliath