Jump to content
IGNORED

Bristol R*vers dustbin thread

42nite

By 42nite
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan

Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, SirColinOfMansfield said:
Two minutes in and he hasn't kicked off .... yet! Although his wife was holding her head!
 
10:02

Joey Barton has arrived

Joey Barton is sitting quietly at the back of the court waiting for proceedings to start. He arrived a short time ago with his wife Georgia - who he is accused of assaulting. (pictured in between them is a member of his legal team)

At least he’s not wearing that stupid cap for once....gone for the ‘begger look’. Been hanging around with Sagheads too long.

Speaking of which, any of his OTIB fan club up there cheering him on? 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
readie14

readie14

Posted
Posted

Lump the size of a golf ball' on her head
Outlining the case for the prosecution, Helena Duong said Mrs Barton called 999 and said she has been hit in her house by her husband, and asked for police to attend urgently.

They arrived at 11.38pm and spoke to her outside. "She gives her first account of what she says has happened," said Ms Duong. "She said she has gotten into a drunken fight and her husband has pushed her down. 'He;s got my head and pushed me down and kicked me in the head'," Ms Duong says Mrs Barton told police at the time.

This is what will be viewed in the police bodycam footage.

"The video shows injuries, a lump the size of a golf ball on her forehead. She puts her hand up to it and there's blood - she's also got a bloody nose," Ms Duong added.

We're still in legal arguments about all this

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eddie Hitler

Eddie Hitler

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Adjourned again.

 

The justice system in this country is ridiculously inefficient.

All the salaried staff turn up and then something that could easily have been incorporated into the case months ago means that everyone goes home for an early lunch.

  • Like 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BanburyRed

BanburyRed

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, wendyredredrobin said:

Jailbird Joey in the dock again today.  The CPS must think they have a strong case even though his wife is not pressing charges.  Hopefully the court will take the thug aff the streets this time.  If found guilty, surely the beak will have to impose a custodial sentence bearíng in mind his previous.

He's in the dock more often than a P&O ferry.....

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PHILINFRANCE

PHILINFRANCE

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

The justice system in this country is ridiculously inefficient.

All the salaried staff turn up and then something that could easily have been incorporated into the case months ago means that everyone goes home for an early lunch.

One has to wonder why, not only did the CPS 'decline' to take the statement proferred by Mrs B some time ago (nor respond to her chase up mails), but why, apparently, their barrister didn't find out until this morning in Court that Mrs B had even written to the Police!  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eddie Hitler

Eddie Hitler

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

One has to wonder why, not only did the CPS 'decline' to take the statement proferred by Mrs B some time ago (nor respond to her chase up mails), but why, apparently, their barrister didn't find out until this morning in Court that Mrs B had even written to the Police!  

 

It seems to me that because they have the guaranteed income whatever happens none of them have any interest in making the system work better.

They're probably all down the pub or at home now which for them is a result: a day's pay for a half hour's work.

Trebles all round ?

 

This is more common than you would think in cases where the defendant can afford decent representation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BTRFTG

BTRFTG

Posted
Posted

Now I might just buy The Old Bill randomly fake emergency call records then randomly turn up at the home of failed, thuggish ex-footballers. I might even be persuaded they then proceed to Deep Fake video footage from body cams showing invented physical injury. Simply, they've nothing better to do, have they?

But what no silk could ever persuade me to accept (me and the wife being partial to a glass or two,) is that at a dinner party for 6 between 24 & 30 bottles of wine were consumed. If we had friends who turned up with a half case each I think we might first sit them down and ask if things were "OK?"

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PHILINFRANCE

PHILINFRANCE

Posted
Posted

OK, call me cynical, I prefer pragmatic, but I am now more convinced than ever that the JB case is going to die a death.

We will all have our views as to the general circumstances, but, unless I am mistaken, none of us on this thread were present on that fateful night so, by extension, none of us really know what happened.

The only ‘facts’, such as have been described in the media, are that, whilst entertaining friends back in June 2021, Mr and Mrs B got involved in a drunken argument (they drank four or five bottles of wine each!?); Mrs B (presumably under the influence of alcohol) telephoned the Police on the emergency number claiming she had been assaulted by Mr B; the Police arrived and found Mrs B with a lump on her head the size of a golf ball. Apparently, Mr B was upstairs, asleep and intoxicated, when the Police arrived.

When the proceedings started in Court this morning, the first thing the Prosecutor’s barrister did was to request a short adjournment as she had discovered this morning that Mrs B had written to the CPS one month ago, and followed up her letter with two E-Mails, none of which had been acknowledged.

I can imagine Ms Duong, prosecuting, was both embarrassed and absolutely furious, but I am curious; not only as to why the CPS didn’t respond to Mrs B, but also why they didn’t disclose the letter to the prosecuting barrister until this morning.

The cynic in me wonders whether the last thing the CPS wanted in their file was a statement from Mrs B saying that she wasn’t actually assaulted at all (by Mr B) - this is a Victimless (or evidence-based) Prosecution, after all - and, by withholding the letter until today, they hoped to just present their case to the sole District Judge – not the usual Bench – basing their evidence on Mrs B’s 999 telephone call, made whilst in drink, and the Police video.

Are the CPS not obliged to present all evidence, not just that which suits them? Might the fact they declined Mrs B’s request to provide a written statement be considered an Abuse of Process?

I have not seen it mentioned that Mr and Mrs Clint Hill were in Court this morning, but I can imagine the Prosecution were not best pleased to see the alleged victim of this Victimless Prosecution arrive, arm in arm with the man accused of assaulting her.

Anyway, the case has now been adjourned for a second time, and I wonder, yet again, whether it is really in the public interest to proceed with this prosecution.

I am not in any way condoning the alleged crime, far from it, but Mr and Mrs B are (ostensibly) living a happy family life together with their children, and I wonder whether the Court really want to proceed and perhaps find him guilty, whereby he probably loses his job; very possibly is ostracised from football, but, most importantly, suffers disruption to his family life with the resultant distress to his wife and children.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shaun Taylor

Shaun Taylor

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

OK, call me cynical, I prefer pragmatic, but I am now more convinced than ever that the JB case is going to die a death.

We will all have our views as to the general circumstances, but, unless I am mistaken, none of us on this thread were present on that fateful night so, by extension, none of us really know what happened.

The only ‘facts’, such as have been described in the media, are that, whilst entertaining friends back in June 2021, Mr and Mrs B got involved in a drunken argument (they drank four or five bottles of wine each!?); Mrs B (presumably under the influence of alcohol) telephoned the Police on the emergency number claiming she had been assaulted by Mr B; the Police arrived and found Mrs B with a lump on her head the size of a golf ball. Apparently, Mr B was upstairs, asleep and intoxicated, when the Police arrived.

When the proceedings started in Court this morning, the first thing the Prosecutor’s barrister did was to request a short adjournment as she had discovered this morning that Mrs B had written to the CPS one month ago, and followed up her letter with two E-Mails, none of which had been acknowledged.

I can imagine Ms Duong, prosecuting, was both embarrassed and absolutely furious, but I am curious; not only as to why the CPS didn’t respond to Mrs B, but also why they didn’t disclose the letter to the prosecuting barrister until this morning.

The cynic in me wonders whether the last thing the CPS wanted in their file was a statement from Mrs B saying that she wasn’t actually assaulted at all (by Mr B) - this is a Victimless (or evidence-based) Prosecution, after all - and, by withholding the letter until today, they hoped to just present their case to the sole District Judge – not the usual Bench – basing their evidence on Mrs B’s 999 telephone call, made whilst in drink, and the Police video.

Are the CPS not obliged to present all evidence, not just that which suits them? Might the fact they declined Mrs B’s request to provide a written statement be considered an Abuse of Process?

I have not seen it mentioned that Mr and Mrs Clint Hill were in Court this morning, but I can imagine the Prosecution were not best pleased to see the alleged victim of this Victimless Prosecution arrive, arm in arm with the man accused of assaulting her.

Anyway, the case has now been adjourned for a second time, and I wonder, yet again, whether it is really in the public interest to proceed with this prosecution.

I am not in any way condoning the alleged crime, far from it, but Mr and Mrs B are (ostensibly) living a happy family life together with their children, and I wonder whether the Court really want to proceed and perhaps find him guilty, whereby he probably loses his job; very possibly is ostracised from football, but, most importantly, suffers disruption to his family life with the resultant distress to his wife and children.

 

Leapords don't change their spots it's just a case of waiting for the next incident to occur.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NcnsBcfc

NcnsBcfc

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

OK, call me cynical, I prefer pragmatic, but I am now more convinced than ever that the JB case is going to die a death.

We will all have our views as to the general circumstances, but, unless I am mistaken, none of us on this thread were present on that fateful night so, by extension, none of us really know what happened.

The only ‘facts’, such as have been described in the media, are that, whilst entertaining friends back in June 2021, Mr and Mrs B got involved in a drunken argument (they drank four or five bottles of wine each!?); Mrs B (presumably under the influence of alcohol) telephoned the Police on the emergency number claiming she had been assaulted by Mr B; the Police arrived and found Mrs B with a lump on her head the size of a golf ball. Apparently, Mr B was upstairs, asleep and intoxicated, when the Police arrived.

When the proceedings started in Court this morning, the first thing the Prosecutor’s barrister did was to request a short adjournment as she had discovered this morning that Mrs B had written to the CPS one month ago, and followed up her letter with two E-Mails, none of which had been acknowledged.

I can imagine Ms Duong, prosecuting, was both embarrassed and absolutely furious, but I am curious; not only as to why the CPS didn’t respond to Mrs B, but also why they didn’t disclose the letter to the prosecuting barrister until this morning.

The cynic in me wonders whether the last thing the CPS wanted in their file was a statement from Mrs B saying that she wasn’t actually assaulted at all (by Mr B) - this is a Victimless (or evidence-based) Prosecution, after all - and, by withholding the letter until today, they hoped to just present their case to the sole District Judge – not the usual Bench – basing their evidence on Mrs B’s 999 telephone call, made whilst in drink, and the Police video.

Are the CPS not obliged to present all evidence, not just that which suits them? Might the fact they declined Mrs B’s request to provide a written statement be considered an Abuse of Process?

I have not seen it mentioned that Mr and Mrs Clint Hill were in Court this morning, but I can imagine the Prosecution were not best pleased to see the alleged victim of this Victimless Prosecution arrive, arm in arm with the man accused of assaulting her.

Anyway, the case has now been adjourned for a second time, and I wonder, yet again, whether it is really in the public interest to proceed with this prosecution.

I am not in any way condoning the alleged crime, far from it, but Mr and Mrs B are (ostensibly) living a happy family life together with their children, and I wonder whether the Court really want to proceed and perhaps find him guilty, whereby he probably loses his job; very possibly is ostracised from football, but, most importantly, suffers disruption to his family life with the resultant distress to his wife and children.

 

A district Judge would sit by themselves not as a panel. They sre normally reserved for the more serious magistrates Summary only trials.

The Crown is under a duty to disclose to the defence any material that assists the defence or undermines the prosecution as part of the disclosure act (CPIA).

However given that the defence seemed to be unaware until today of the actions of Mrs B. I would guess that she had unilaterally written to "someone", or emailed "someone". Certainly the process should have been done through Barton's defence team as some sort of Defence Case Statement.

In these type of prosecutions. The "victim" is invariably hostile to the thought of prosecuting their partner for a whole multitude of reasons.

Ultimately:-

- She phones the Police, and says she has been assaulted.

- Police arrive she has some injuries consistent with her 999 call, and further disclosures are made on video.

- These are captured on BWV, thus the need for a statement or some sort of evidence of the injury from a hostile witness is no technically neceasary.

The Crown only opened the case with a summary, before the objections started. No doubt large amounts of footage would have been played. Probably documenting the accounts of the other people present (standby on Mr & Mrs Hill there).

This was always going to be a much trickier case to defend than the Barnsley manager case. 

It's still got some legs in it i reckon

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan

Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I am not in any way condoning the alleged crime, far from it, but Mr and Mrs B are (ostensibly) living a happy family life together with their children, and I wonder whether the Court really want to proceed and perhaps find him guilty, whereby he probably loses his job; very possibly is ostracised from football, but, most importantly, suffers disruption to his family life with the resultant distress to his wife and children.

 

Whether he loses his job is neither here nor there. Why that would ever be taken into consideration when deciding when to persue a prosecution or not is beyond me? 

Yes, he probably will get away with it, whether that actually turns out to be the best thing for his wife and children remains to be seen. 

IF you kick you’re wife in the head (or kick anyone in the head ) you should face consequences, not have everything swept under the carpet for a ‘quiet life’.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BTRFTG

BTRFTG

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

OK, call me cynical, I prefer pragmatic, but I am now more convinced than ever that the JB case is going to die a death.

We will all have our views as to the general circumstances, but, unless I am mistaken, none of us on this thread were present on that fateful night so, by extension, none of us really know what happened.

The only ‘facts’, such as have been described in the media, are that, whilst entertaining friends back in June 2021, Mr and Mrs B got involved in a drunken argument (they drank four or five bottles of wine each!?); Mrs B (presumably under the influence of alcohol) telephoned the Police on the emergency number claiming she had been assaulted by Mr B; the Police arrived and found Mrs B with a lump on her head the size of a golf ball. Apparently, Mr B was upstairs, asleep and intoxicated, when the Police arrived.

When the proceedings started in Court this morning, the first thing the Prosecutor’s barrister did was to request a short adjournment as she had discovered this morning that Mrs B had written to the CPS one month ago, and followed up her letter with two E-Mails, none of which had been acknowledged.

I can imagine Ms Duong, prosecuting, was both embarrassed and absolutely furious, but I am curious; not only as to why the CPS didn’t respond to Mrs B, but also why they didn’t disclose the letter to the prosecuting barrister until this morning.

The cynic in me wonders whether the last thing the CPS wanted in their file was a statement from Mrs B saying that she wasn’t actually assaulted at all (by Mr B) - this is a Victimless (or evidence-based) Prosecution, after all - and, by withholding the letter until today, they hoped to just present their case to the sole District Judge – not the usual Bench – basing their evidence on Mrs B’s 999 telephone call, made whilst in drink, and the Police video.

Are the CPS not obliged to present all evidence, not just that which suits them? Might the fact they declined Mrs B’s request to provide a written statement be considered an Abuse of Process?

I have not seen it mentioned that Mr and Mrs Clint Hill were in Court this morning, but I can imagine the Prosecution were not best pleased to see the alleged victim of this Victimless Prosecution arrive, arm in arm with the man accused of assaulting her.

Anyway, the case has now been adjourned for a second time, and I wonder, yet again, whether it is really in the public interest to proceed with this prosecution.

I am not in any way condoning the alleged crime, far from it, but Mr and Mrs B are (ostensibly) living a happy family life together with their children, and I wonder whether the Court really want to proceed and perhaps find him guilty, whereby he probably loses his job; very possibly is ostracised from football, but, most importantly, suffers disruption to his family life with the resultant distress to his wife and children.

 

Residing in the land of the ? I believe, Phil, you are best placed to advance justice in proving said theory that one can consume 5 bottles of ? and then dial, having first managed to locate one's ? & remembered the applicable number, the emergency services.

Perhaps you might upload an audio file to prove this possible? God forbid you attempt to inform the call-handler of the toppings you'd prefer on your ? or worse, inform them upon hanging up that," I loves you, I do........."

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GlastonburyRed

GlastonburyRed

Posted
Posted

Regardless of what happens in this case, and I imagine the charges will be dropped...I am a big believer in such alleged offenders having to live with themselves at the end of the day. This will be on the record for any children of JB, and they can they reach their own conclusions once they reach majority. A more telling judgment than any 18 month suspended sentence could ever seek to be, I suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WessexPest

WessexPest

Posted
Posted

Whatever the outcome of this trial, Barton is incontrovertibly a massive dark stain on a pair of new white underpants and “Bristol” Rovers are a pox on humanity. 
 

In all my years of judging
I have never heard before
Of someone more deserving
Of the full penalty of law

To be exposed before your peers is my sentence

Tear down the tents! Tear down the tents!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shaun Taylor

Shaun Taylor

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Wanderingred said:

Crowing again….

2F3CC590-3237-4FE1-8FC2-08259F0B6EC5.png

Gas took 595 to Crawley a few weeks ago we sold our 800 allocation for today's game in a day and asked for another 800 as the away end holds 1600 but it was refused. Strange considering they are skint and they get crowds of just over 2000

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan

Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Wanderingred said:

Crowing again….

2F3CC590-3237-4FE1-8FC2-08259F0B6EC5.png

Bless.

We average more away than the Gas every single season, we sell out more away allocations than they do and we sell 3 times as many STs irrespective of Covid or how poor we’ve been.

If they want to know who are the worst fans in the entire 92 they might want to look a little closer to home...

 

9ADADA9C-A20B-4492-B58E-B9B2079E680E.jpeg

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fordy62

Fordy62

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

We can laugh but a win at Northampton means the SAGS are major players for promotion this season. They're the in form team and if they don't make automatic they could well be a good bet to win the play offs. 

Oh great. They’re getting promoted to the league they should be in. Amazing achievement. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrahamC

GrahamC

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

Bless.

We average more away than the Gas every single season, we sell out more away allocations than they do and we sell 3 times as many STs irrespective of Covid or how poor we’ve been.

If they want to know who are the worst fans in the entire 92 they might want to look a little closer to home...

 

9ADADA9C-A20B-4492-B58E-B9B2079E680E.jpeg

That’s why they always bang on about away support because their home gates are shit.

1993 is the date for them to remember, 30 years since they were in the Championship & far too small a club to return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gimme Shelton

Gimme Shelton

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

We can laugh but a win at Northampton means the SAGS are major players for promotion this season. They're the in form team and if they don't make automatic they could well be a good bet to win the play offs. 

I don't think it often happens that the 'form team' wins the play offs-thats what I'm hoping anyway!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cidercity1987

cidercity1987

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

We can laugh but a win at Northampton means the SAGS are major players for promotion this season. They're the in form team and if they don't make automatic they could well be a good bet to win the play offs. 

Does it really matter, from one shit league to another and a greater chance to laugh at a relegation

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
weepywall

weepywall

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

Does it really matter, from one shit league to another and a greater chance to laugh at a relegation

They will struggle in League 1 as normal, that's a tough league these days, some big clubs in there, they will be a small fish in a big pond in that league instead of a medium size fish in league 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lanterne Rouge

Lanterne Rouge

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, weepywall said:

They will struggle in League 1 as normal, that's a tough league these days, some big clubs in there, they will be a small fish in a big pond in that league instead of a medium size fish in league 2.

Absolutely it is. assuming Wigan & Rotherham go up along with one of the bigger sides via the playoffs they will still be up against most or all of:

Derby, Barnsley/Reading, Posh, Sunderland, Pompey, Ipswich, Charlton, Sheff. Weds, MK Dons, Plymouth, Oxford, Wycombe & Bolton. 

Good luck finishing top half with that lot!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan

Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan

Posted
Posted
On 16/03/2022 at 09:57, cidercity1987 said:

I think their allocation is circa 1,500 surely they will sell that out, surely

It would appear not.

According to their website they were allocated over 1400 tickets and as you can see from the post above they obviously didn’t sell them all.

What I find odd is that apparently we have the shittest fans in the League.…but we take over 1400 to Forest when we haven’t won away for 6 months and our season is pretty much over yet they can’t sell their allocation for a huge promotion clash? 

Interesting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lanterne Rouge

Lanterne Rouge

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

It would appear not.

According to their website they were allocated over 1400 tickets and as you can see from the post above they obviously didn’t sell them all.

What I find odd is that apparently we have the shittest fans in the League.…but we take over 1400 to Forest when we haven’t won away for 6 months and our season is pretty much over yet they can’t sell their allocation for a huge promotion clash? 

Interesting.

So, those 1,388 sad s*gs have helped Northampton out financially by going with no benefit to their own club`s finances. I`m sure Wally would rather the vast fanbase of loyal and true could be arsed to stroll up to the swamp occasionally.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CiderJar

CiderJar

Posted
Posted (edited)

Apparently Northampton refused to cook Wael his lucky pre-match lasagne, so he got deliveroo to deliver... and the tweet is a hilarious take on this. One of the replies complained about it and because they @'d deliveroo, deliveroo apologised, officially as if it was a genuine customer complaint.

image.png.89dec8582c089ff588c6fca35ad55403.png

 

And here's another...

image.png.1680e3ea7f49c21d49e97ce3006c28b0.png

 

Don't you just love template responses? They always seem so genuine and sincere.

Edited by CiderJar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HoldenBall

HoldenBall

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, CiderJar said:

Apparently Northampton refused to cook Wael his lucky pre-match lasagne, so he got deliveroo to deliver... and the tweet is a hilarious take on this. One of the replies complained about it and because they @'d deliveroo, deliveroo apologised, officially as if it was a genuine customer complaint.

image.png.89dec8582c089ff588c6fca35ad55403.png

 

And here's another...

image.png.1680e3ea7f49c21d49e97ce3006c28b0.png

 

Don't you just love template responses? They always seem so genuine and sincere.

Why didn’t the self proclaimed billionaire bring his own chef? Nice to see the out of touchness stems even at the top of that poisonous club 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robbored

Robbored

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, harrys said:

That’s a great price but I just couldn’t 

Nor could I especially as our local bookie BetFred has closed down and being an old fashioned type of guy I don’t do online betting.

I much prefer a betting slip in my hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silvio Dante

Silvio Dante

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Nor could I especially as our local bookie BetFred has closed down and being an old fashioned type of guy I don’t do online betting.

I much prefer a betting slip in my hand.

Plus, you must be hoping that they have to go into the playoffs again instead in order to drum up business for your minibus company.

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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