Solar panels subsidy was 'one of the most ridiculous schemes ever dreamed up', Lord Marland says

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Solar panels subsidy was 'one of the most ridiculous schemes ever dreamed up', Lord Marland says

Post  Flap Zappa on Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:04 pm


_______________________________________________________________________
Socialists never tire of spending other peoples money

To the twittersphere
if you wish to comment on this or any other thread then sign up and have your say in more than 140 characters. All political persuasions welcome

The Artist Formally Known As D555 - - Follow on twitter: @in_a_flap              
avatar
Flap Zappa
...........
...........

Posts : 37257
Location : village of the sun

http://inaflap.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Solar panels subsidy was 'one of the most ridiculous schemes ever dreamed up', Lord Marland says

Post  Guest on Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:06 pm

Feed in tariffs should only represent no more than 50% of the cost of the the equivalent unit price from the supplier. The tax payer should never be subsidising greedy rich people who buy electricity at 25 pence and sell back electricity at 45 pence. This is a total waste of tax payer's money.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Solar panels subsidy was 'one of the most ridiculous schemes ever dreamed up', Lord Marland says

Post  Seren on Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:05 pm

Subsidies are necessary in promoting new industries, its standard practice but its also the British way to notice that a small industry is growing and small businesses are doing okay so go and crush it.



Incidentally why is this section entitled "global warming", shouldn't the correct term be "climate change"?
avatar
Seren
..
..

Posts : 186

Back to top Go down

Re: Solar panels subsidy was 'one of the most ridiculous schemes ever dreamed up', Lord Marland says

Post  Flap Zappa on Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:42 pm

@Seren wrote:Subsidies are necessary in promoting new industries, its standard practice but its also the British way to notice that a small industry is growing and small businesses are doing okay so go and crush it.



Incidentally why is this section entitled "global warming", shouldn't the correct term be "climate change"?

well they keep changing it as it falls apart we all know what the con is with global warming. Climate change is a nonsense as the climate has been changing since the first day the planet had an atmosphere.

As to subsidies the fact they make as much money when they are not generating as when they are is a con.
It's the wrong technology for the wrong job. they would be fine as a supplement to conventional power but there is no way in the world they will ever replace the conventional generating industries. they have to have 100% backup for the time they wont work.
We are throwing money away.

_______________________________________________________________________
Socialists never tire of spending other peoples money

To the twittersphere
if you wish to comment on this or any other thread then sign up and have your say in more than 140 characters. All political persuasions welcome

The Artist Formally Known As D555 - - Follow on twitter: @in_a_flap              
avatar
Flap Zappa
...........
...........

Posts : 37257
Location : village of the sun

http://inaflap.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Solar panels subsidy was 'one of the most ridiculous schemes ever dreamed up', Lord Marland says

Post  Hugh Jardon on Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:43 am

@Seren wrote:Subsidies are necessary in promoting new industries, its standard practice but its also the British way to notice that a small industry is growing and small businesses are doing okay so go and crush it.



Incidentally why is this section entitled "global warming", shouldn't the correct term be "climate change"?

..errm..isn't the OP discussing feed in tariffs, not the subsidies of 'green energy'?

Global Warming= Climate Change= Complete and utter BS,
avatar
Hugh Jardon
...........
...........

Posts : 15513
Location : Not up Dean's arse..or anyone's for that matter!

Back to top Go down

Re: Solar panels subsidy was 'one of the most ridiculous schemes ever dreamed up', Lord Marland says

Post  Durham on Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:07 pm

@Hugh Jardon wrote:

..errm..isn't the OP discussing feed in tariffs, not the subsidies of 'green energy'?

Global Warming= Climate Change= Complete and utter BS,

Indeed it is HJ, good morning.

This may be of interest. I missed the first book (available on amazon for kindle - their is a kindle app for ipods/ ipads etc) This will also be worth a read.

The title is most excellent and sums up these people very well "watermelons".

ust imagine a world where you never
had to worry about global warming, where the ice caps, the ‘drowning’
Maldives and the polar bears were all doing just fine.
Imagine
a world where CO2 was our friend, fossil fuels were a miracle we should
cherish, and economic growth made the planet cleaner, healthier,
happier and with more open spaces.

Actually, there’s no need to imagine: it already exists. So why do so many people still believe otherwise?










Zealots: Everyone from the Prince of Wales to
former Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne hammers home the 'threat' of
global warming


How come, against so much evidence,
everyone from the BBC to your kids’ teachers to the Coalition government
(though that may change somewhat now Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has
resigned), to the President of the Royal Society to the Prince of Wales
continues to pump out the message that man-made ‘climate change’ is a
major threat?

Why,
when the records show that there has been no global warming since 1997,
are we still squandering billions of pounds trying to avert it?

These
are some of the questions I set out to answer in my new book — which I
can guarantee will not make me popular with environmentalists.

Almost
every day, on Twitter or by email, I get violent messages of hate
directed not just at me, but even my children. Separately, I’ve been
criticised by websites such as the Campaign Against Climate Change
(Honorary President: the environmental activist and writer George
Monbiot). I’ve had a green activist set up a false website in my name to
misdirect my internet traffic. I’ve been vilified everywhere from the
Guardian to a BBC Horizon documentary as a wicked ‘denier’ who knows
nothing about science.

Not
that I’m complaining. Margaret Thatcher once famously said: ‘I always
cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I
think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a
single political argument left.’

That’s just how I feel about my critics’ ad hominem assaults. They’re born not of strength but out of sheer desperation.




Melting away: The 'climategate' scandal proved the shaky scientific basis for man-made global warming


The turning point towards some
semblance of sanity in the great climate war came in November 2009 with
the leak of the notorious Climategate emails from the University of East
Anglia.

What
these showed is that the so-called ‘consensus’ science behind
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) — ie the theory that man-made CO2 is
causing our planet to heat up in a dangerous, unprecedented fashion —
simply cannot be trusted.

The
experts had, for years, been twisting the evidence, abusing the
scientific process, breaching Freedom of Information requests (by
illegally hiding or deleting emails and taxpayer-funded research) and
silencing dissent in a way which removes all credibility from the
scaremongering reports they write for the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change.

(The
IPCC is the heavily politicised but supposedly neutral UN advisory body
which has been described by President Obama as the ‘gold standard’ of
international climate science.)

Since
Climategate, the scientific case against AGW theory has hardened still
further. Experiments at the CERN laboratory in Geneva have supported the
theory of Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark that the sun — not man-made
CO2 — is the biggest driver of climate change.

The
latest data released by the Met Office, based on readings from 30,000
measuring stations, confirms there has been no global warming for 15
years.




New Ice Age? Solar flares (pictured) are at their lowest level since the seventeenth century


Now, with sunspot activity
(solar flares caused by magnetic activity) at its lowest since the days
of the 17th-century frost fairs on the Thames, it seems increasingly
likely we are about to enter a new mini Ice Age. Should we be bothered
by this? Of course we should. Not only does it mean that for the rest of
our lives we’re likely to be doomed to experience colder winters and
duller summers, but it also makes us victims of perhaps the most
expensive fraud in history.

Over
the past 20 years, across the Western world, billions of pounds,
dollars and euros have been squandered by governments on hare-brained
schemes to ‘combat climate change’.

Taxes
have been raised, regulations increased, flights made more expensive,
incandescent light bulbs banned, landscapes despoiled by ugly,
bird-chomping wind farms, economic growth curtailed — all to deal with
what now turns out to have been a non-existent problem: man-made CO2.

But
if anthropogenic warming is not the threat environmentalists would have
us believe, why do so many people believe it is? And how come so many
disparate groups — from the hair-shirt anti-capitalist activists of
Greenpeace and Friends Of The Earth to the executives of big
corporations, to politicians of every hue from Gordon Brown to David
Cameron to scientists at NASA and the UEA — are working together to
promote this pernicious myth?

The short answer is ‘follow the money’.

Phil
Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA which was at the
centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal, for example, was given
£13.7 million in grants for his department’s research work; the
environmental non-governmental organisations such as Greenpeace came on
board because scaremongering helps them raise revenue.




Emotionalising the issue: Appeals for the welfare of polar bears, for example, help drum up support for 'green' agendas


You’re not going to give money
to the charity’s Project Thin Ice if you think the polar bear is good
for another 10,000 years, but you might if you’re told it’s seriously
endangered.

Politicians
were attracted because it was a good way of being seen to be addressing
an issue of popular concern, and a handy excuse to put up taxes.

Big
corporations joined in the scam as a) it enabled them to ‘greenwash’
their image through campaigns like BP’s ‘Beyond Petroleum’ and b) it
meant all that extra environmental regulation would be a handy way of
pricing their smaller competitors out of the market place.

But
money isn’t the only reason. If you read the private emails of the
Climategate scientists, what you discover is that most of them genuinely
believe in the climate change peril.

That’s
why they lied about the evidence and why they tried to destroy the
careers of those scientists who disagreed with them: because they wanted
to scare politicians into action before time ran out. This was not
science, in other words, but political activism.

A
similar ‘end justifies the means’ mentality seems to prevail among all
those environmental lobby groups. They don’t exaggerate or misrepresent
because they’re bad people. They do it, as a former head of Greenpeace
once charmingly put it when accused of having overstated the decline in
Arctic sea ice, to ‘emotionalise the issue’; because they want to make
the rest of the world care about these issues as much as they do.




Blighted: It is possible that wind farms cause more environmental damage than they prevent


Powerful feelings, though, are
hardly the most sensible basis for global policy. Especially not when,
as it turns out, they are based on a misreading of the facts.

One
of the grimmest ironies of the modern environmental movement is just
how much damage it has done to the planet in the name of ‘saving’ it.
Green biofuels (crops such as palm oil grown for fuel) have not only led
to the destruction of millions of acres of rainforest in Asia, Africa
and South America, but are now known to produce four times more CO2
pollution than fossil fuels.

Wind
farms, besides blighting views, destroying topsoil and causing massive
noise pollution, kill around 400,000 birds a year in the U.S. alone.
Environmentalists, in fact, have a disastrous track record when it comes
to predictions and policy recommendations. Rachel Carson’s 1962
bestseller Silent Spring — which promised a cancer epidemic from
pesticides — led to a near worldwide ban on the malarial pesticide DDT,
thus condemning millions in the Third World to die from malaria.

Paul
Ehrlich’s 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb, meanwhile, rehearsed
another of the green movement’s favourite themes: overpopulation. By the
Seventies and Eighties, he warned, hundreds of millions of us would be
dying like flies because there wouldn’t be enough food.

Why
did Ehrlich’s prediction never come to pass? Because, like most of the
greenies’ doomsday scenarios, it overlooked one vital factor: progress.

Because
the green movement has for years been ideologically wedded to the
notion that mankind is an ecological curse (‘The Earth has a cancer. The
cancer is man’, as a global think tank called The Club of Rome, which
includes several current and former heads of state, puts it), it fails
to understand the role which technology, human ingenuity and adaption
play in our species’ survival.
Ehrlich’s
population disaster was averted thanks to a brilliant American
scientist called Norman Borlaug who devised new mutant strains of wheat
which managed to treble cereal production on the starving Indian
subcontinent.




Progress: Population growth on the Indian subcontinent necessitated the introduction of genetically-modified strains of crops


Of course, there is still
widespread concern over the use of genetically modified crops, but
scientists argue that with proper safeguards in place they can actually
be more environmentally friendly than conventional crops, using less
water and fewer pesticides.

Similar
technological advances in the field of energy make a nonsense of
environmentalists’ claims that we are running out of fuel: long before
coal ran out came the petroleum revolution; and, though we still have
plenty of oil left, we now have the miracle of shale gas which lies in
abundance everywhere from Blackpool to the North Sea, and is released
using blasts of high-pressure liquid to open pockets of gas in rock.

When, many decades hence, that runs out we will start to harvest clathrates (solid methane deposits) buried on the ocean floor.

Economic
progress is not our enemy but our friend. It is an historical fact that
the richer nations are, the more money they have to spare on ensuring a
cleaner environment: compare the relatively clean air in London to the
choking smog that envelops Beijing and Delhi; look at where the worst
ecological disasters happened in the last century — under impoverished
Communist regimes, from the Aral Sea to Chernobyl.

But
the greens refuse to accept this because, according to their
quasi-religious doctrine, industrial civilisation is a curse and
economic growth a disease which can only be cured by rationing and
self-sacrifice, higher taxes and greater state control.

That’s
why I call my new book Watermelons — because it’s about zealots who are
green on the outside, but in political terms, red on the inside. If
only their views weren’t so influential, in schools, universities, in
the media, in the corridors of power, the global economy wouldn’t be
nearly in the mess it’s in today.

As
someone who loves long walks in unspoilt countryside and who wants a
brighter future for his children, I’m sickened by the way environmental
activists tar anyone who disagrees with them as a selfish, polluting,
anti-science ‘denier’.

The
real deniers are those ideological greens who refuse to look at hard
evidence (not just pie-in-the-sky computer models which are no more
accurate than the suspect data fed into them) and won’t accept that
their well-intentioned schemes to make our world a better place are in
fact making it uglier, poorer and less free.

James Delingpole’s Watermelons: How Environmentalists Are Killing The Planet, Destroying The Economy And Stealing Your Children’s Future is published by Biteback (£14.99).

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096277/Global-warming-James-Delingpole-claims-green-zealots-destroying-planet.html#ixzz1lawNsrBk
avatar
Durham
..........
..........

Posts : 10560

Back to top Go down

Re: Solar panels subsidy was 'one of the most ridiculous schemes ever dreamed up', Lord Marland says

Post  Hugh Jardon on Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:18 pm

DurhamLad wrote:

Indeed it is HJ, good morning.

This may be of interest. I missed the first book (available on amazon for kindle - their is a kindle app for ipods/ ipads etc) This will also be worth a read.

The title is most excellent and sums up these people very well "watermelons".

ust imagine a world where you never
had to worry about global warming, where the ice caps, the ‘drowning’
Maldives and the polar bears were all doing just fine.
Imagine
a world where CO2 was our friend, fossil fuels were a miracle we should
cherish, and economic growth made the planet cleaner, healthier,
happier and with more open spaces.

Actually, there’s no need to imagine: it already exists. So why do so many people still believe otherwise?










Zealots: Everyone from the Prince of Wales to
former Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne hammers home the 'threat' of
global warming


How come, against so much evidence,
everyone from the BBC to your kids’ teachers to the Coalition government
(though that may change somewhat now Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has
resigned), to the President of the Royal Society to the Prince of Wales
continues to pump out the message that man-made ‘climate change’ is a
major threat?

Why,
when the records show that there has been no global warming since 1997,
are we still squandering billions of pounds trying to avert it?

These
are some of the questions I set out to answer in my new book — which I
can guarantee will not make me popular with environmentalists.

Almost
every day, on Twitter or by email, I get violent messages of hate
directed not just at me, but even my children. Separately, I’ve been
criticised by websites such as the Campaign Against Climate Change
(Honorary President: the environmental activist and writer George
Monbiot). I’ve had a green activist set up a false website in my name to
misdirect my internet traffic. I’ve been vilified everywhere from the
Guardian to a BBC Horizon documentary as a wicked ‘denier’ who knows
nothing about science.

Not
that I’m complaining. Margaret Thatcher once famously said: ‘I always
cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I
think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a
single political argument left.’

That’s just how I feel about my critics’ ad hominem assaults. They’re born not of strength but out of sheer desperation.




Melting away: The 'climategate' scandal proved the shaky scientific basis for man-made global warming


The turning point towards some
semblance of sanity in the great climate war came in November 2009 with
the leak of the notorious Climategate emails from the University of East
Anglia.

What
these showed is that the so-called ‘consensus’ science behind
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) — ie the theory that man-made CO2 is
causing our planet to heat up in a dangerous, unprecedented fashion —
simply cannot be trusted.

The
experts had, for years, been twisting the evidence, abusing the
scientific process, breaching Freedom of Information requests (by
illegally hiding or deleting emails and taxpayer-funded research) and
silencing dissent in a way which removes all credibility from the
scaremongering reports they write for the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change.

(The
IPCC is the heavily politicised but supposedly neutral UN advisory body
which has been described by President Obama as the ‘gold standard’ of
international climate science.)

Since
Climategate, the scientific case against AGW theory has hardened still
further. Experiments at the CERN laboratory in Geneva have supported the
theory of Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark that the sun — not man-made
CO2 — is the biggest driver of climate change.

The
latest data released by the Met Office, based on readings from 30,000
measuring stations, confirms there has been no global warming for 15
years.




New Ice Age? Solar flares (pictured) are at their lowest level since the seventeenth century


Now, with sunspot activity
(solar flares caused by magnetic activity) at its lowest since the days
of the 17th-century frost fairs on the Thames, it seems increasingly
likely we are about to enter a new mini Ice Age. Should we be bothered
by this? Of course we should. Not only does it mean that for the rest of
our lives we’re likely to be doomed to experience colder winters and
duller summers, but it also makes us victims of perhaps the most
expensive fraud in history.

Over
the past 20 years, across the Western world, billions of pounds,
dollars and euros have been squandered by governments on hare-brained
schemes to ‘combat climate change’.

Taxes
have been raised, regulations increased, flights made more expensive,
incandescent light bulbs banned, landscapes despoiled by ugly,
bird-chomping wind farms, economic growth curtailed — all to deal with
what now turns out to have been a non-existent problem: man-made CO2.

But
if anthropogenic warming is not the threat environmentalists would have
us believe, why do so many people believe it is? And how come so many
disparate groups — from the hair-shirt anti-capitalist activists of
Greenpeace and Friends Of The Earth to the executives of big
corporations, to politicians of every hue from Gordon Brown to David
Cameron to scientists at NASA and the UEA — are working together to
promote this pernicious myth?

The short answer is ‘follow the money’.

Phil
Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA which was at the
centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal, for example, was given
£13.7 million in grants for his department’s research work; the
environmental non-governmental organisations such as Greenpeace came on
board because scaremongering helps them raise revenue.




Emotionalising the issue: Appeals for the welfare of polar bears, for example, help drum up support for 'green' agendas


You’re not going to give money
to the charity’s Project Thin Ice if you think the polar bear is good
for another 10,000 years, but you might if you’re told it’s seriously
endangered.

Politicians
were attracted because it was a good way of being seen to be addressing
an issue of popular concern, and a handy excuse to put up taxes.

Big
corporations joined in the scam as a) it enabled them to ‘greenwash’
their image through campaigns like BP’s ‘Beyond Petroleum’ and b) it
meant all that extra environmental regulation would be a handy way of
pricing their smaller competitors out of the market place.

But
money isn’t the only reason. If you read the private emails of the
Climategate scientists, what you discover is that most of them genuinely
believe in the climate change peril.

That’s
why they lied about the evidence and why they tried to destroy the
careers of those scientists who disagreed with them: because they wanted
to scare politicians into action before time ran out. This was not
science, in other words, but political activism.

A
similar ‘end justifies the means’ mentality seems to prevail among all
those environmental lobby groups. They don’t exaggerate or misrepresent
because they’re bad people. They do it, as a former head of Greenpeace
once charmingly put it when accused of having overstated the decline in
Arctic sea ice, to ‘emotionalise the issue’; because they want to make
the rest of the world care about these issues as much as they do.




Blighted: It is possible that wind farms cause more environmental damage than they prevent


Powerful feelings, though, are
hardly the most sensible basis for global policy. Especially not when,
as it turns out, they are based on a misreading of the facts.

One
of the grimmest ironies of the modern environmental movement is just
how much damage it has done to the planet in the name of ‘saving’ it.
Green biofuels (crops such as palm oil grown for fuel) have not only led
to the destruction of millions of acres of rainforest in Asia, Africa
and South America, but are now known to produce four times more CO2
pollution than fossil fuels.

Wind
farms, besides blighting views, destroying topsoil and causing massive
noise pollution, kill around 400,000 birds a year in the U.S. alone.
Environmentalists, in fact, have a disastrous track record when it comes
to predictions and policy recommendations. Rachel Carson’s 1962
bestseller Silent Spring — which promised a cancer epidemic from
pesticides — led to a near worldwide ban on the malarial pesticide DDT,
thus condemning millions in the Third World to die from malaria.

Paul
Ehrlich’s 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb, meanwhile, rehearsed
another of the green movement’s favourite themes: overpopulation. By the
Seventies and Eighties, he warned, hundreds of millions of us would be
dying like flies because there wouldn’t be enough food.

Why
did Ehrlich’s prediction never come to pass? Because, like most of the
greenies’ doomsday scenarios, it overlooked one vital factor: progress.

Because
the green movement has for years been ideologically wedded to the
notion that mankind is an ecological curse (‘The Earth has a cancer. The
cancer is man’, as a global think tank called The Club of Rome, which
includes several current and former heads of state, puts it), it fails
to understand the role which technology, human ingenuity and adaption
play in our species’ survival.
Ehrlich’s
population disaster was averted thanks to a brilliant American
scientist called Norman Borlaug who devised new mutant strains of wheat
which managed to treble cereal production on the starving Indian
subcontinent.




Progress: Population growth on the Indian subcontinent necessitated the introduction of genetically-modified strains of crops


Of course, there is still
widespread concern over the use of genetically modified crops, but
scientists argue that with proper safeguards in place they can actually
be more environmentally friendly than conventional crops, using less
water and fewer pesticides.

Similar
technological advances in the field of energy make a nonsense of
environmentalists’ claims that we are running out of fuel: long before
coal ran out came the petroleum revolution; and, though we still have
plenty of oil left, we now have the miracle of shale gas which lies in
abundance everywhere from Blackpool to the North Sea, and is released
using blasts of high-pressure liquid to open pockets of gas in rock.

When, many decades hence, that runs out we will start to harvest clathrates (solid methane deposits) buried on the ocean floor.

Economic
progress is not our enemy but our friend. It is an historical fact that
the richer nations are, the more money they have to spare on ensuring a
cleaner environment: compare the relatively clean air in London to the
choking smog that envelops Beijing and Delhi; look at where the worst
ecological disasters happened in the last century — under impoverished
Communist regimes, from the Aral Sea to Chernobyl.

But
the greens refuse to accept this because, according to their
quasi-religious doctrine, industrial civilisation is a curse and
economic growth a disease which can only be cured by rationing and
self-sacrifice, higher taxes and greater state control.

That’s
why I call my new book Watermelons — because it’s about zealots who are
green on the outside, but in political terms, red on the inside. If
only their views weren’t so influential, in schools, universities, in
the media, in the corridors of power, the global economy wouldn’t be
nearly in the mess it’s in today.

As
someone who loves long walks in unspoilt countryside and who wants a
brighter future for his children, I’m sickened by the way environmental
activists tar anyone who disagrees with them as a selfish, polluting,
anti-science ‘denier’.

The
real deniers are those ideological greens who refuse to look at hard
evidence (not just pie-in-the-sky computer models which are no more
accurate than the suspect data fed into them) and won’t accept that
their well-intentioned schemes to make our world a better place are in
fact making it uglier, poorer and less free.

James Delingpole’s Watermelons: How Environmentalists Are Killing The Planet, Destroying The Economy And Stealing Your Children’s Future is published by Biteback (£14.99).

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096277/Global-warming-James-Delingpole-claims-green-zealots-destroying-planet.html#ixzz1lawNsrBk

hello sir...

I have long stated that Global warming was a new form of socialism...just another way of controlling the masses, whilst those at the top did what they wanted!

the earth will do what the hell it wants to..and always will.
Until big yelow ball in sky goes tits up
avatar
Hugh Jardon
...........
...........

Posts : 15513
Location : Not up Dean's arse..or anyone's for that matter!

Back to top Go down

Re: Solar panels subsidy was 'one of the most ridiculous schemes ever dreamed up', Lord Marland says

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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