Mark Duggan

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Mark Duggan

Post by Lumbering_Jack on Fri 10 Jan 2014, 11:11 am

First topic message reminder :

The last article was removed, I assume, for the shameful allegations being levelled at the police such as evidence tampering, police corruption, corrupt juries, fixed crown court trials etc... All clearly absurd so let's steer clear of these baseless accusations on this one please.

Rather than looking at the court case itself, how about we look at how things can be improved in the future. Is wearing a camera on duty for an armed officer helpful? Do they need to do more for community policing? What exactly should the role of the police be?

I can see the merits of a camera, but what a policeman see's during his split second in dealing with a dangerous situations, and what a camera records are two different things. The evidence here would need to be handled carefully.

For me the police need to get tough on gangs. The police in this country mother you, and if you so much as swear at someone they can report you for hurting their feelings. More of a no-nonsense approach is needed. Ultimately, criminals will never like police, so why should the police be nice to them.

Lumbering_Jack

Posts : 4341
Join date : 2011-03-07
Location : Newcastle

Back to top Go down


Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by Guest on Sun 12 Jan 2014, 2:35 am

Cheers Lion. I genuinely believe your intentions are pure.  OK 

....and my hair will never turn grey!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by Duty281 on Sun 12 Jan 2014, 3:28 am

The Fourth Lion wrote:
Nore Staat wrote:
The Fourth Lion wrote: ....

And why would it be pulled...?   Because the prevailing establishment view is being challenged...?    Because those interested in justice are having their say and it is uncomfortable for those who would deny the right of free thought and speech..?

You could be right.  This thread may, indeed, be pulled.

And what would that say about those who run this site..?


People can't make unfounded accusations as that is libel.  You need to add things like "allegedly" or "it seems like" or "in my opinion".  You just can't make "assertions" that are unproven.  Anyway I am not a moderator - so I don't know what gets pulled or what doesn't.

ps it is happening on both sides of the argument - some are making assertions about Mark Duggan that are unproven while others are making assertions about the police that are unproven.  There are some facts e.g. police statements that have been shown to be false ... but you can't prove that it was a "lie" as it could have been an "honest mistake" due to "not seeing things clearly".



Ahhhh, the muddying of the waters. "Honest mistake".   "not seeing things clearly".    Britain's prisons are full of people who made "honest mistakes" or "didn't see things clearly".   But it's a pretty safe bet that none of those people were ever armed police officers.  

You are quite right, I cannot prove or disprove what was, or wasn't a lie in the case of Mark Duggan.   With regard to allegations made in other posts on this thread, such as the Plebgate affair, I can say such things because (in that instance) the officer concerned has, himself, said he lied.   Q.E.D.   With relation to other things such as the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, those convictions were quashed after appeals revealed that the police fabricated evidence, so those instances are pretty safe too. Stefan Kiszko's conviction was posthumously overturned.   I'll give you three guesses why.  The original inquest verdict into the Hillsborough tragedy has also been overturned because.... guess what..... the police have been found to have lied.  

Do I really need to put "allegedly" in front of statements about police dishonesty...?   Nah.

If the Metropolitan Police want to sue me for libel, then let them.  That would bring the Mark Duggan issue into the civil court and then they would have to give evidence on oath, in open court, and be identified in person.       Do you think officer V57 or whatever he was called in the Duggan inquest would like to do that...?   Especially if the Duggan family were sitting in the public gallery.  Being named in open court would allow the press to report it on the front page of every newspaper in the country.   Do you really think he would want that..?  

Nah.   Quite the opposite, methinks.

As for this thread, well, I have no control over what is done with it or not.  But if it does get pulled then I have already had my say and made my opinions known.  Those who wish to disagree with me are at liberty to do so.  That is the purpose of discussion, and without dissent, there is no discussion.   So I welcome disagreement and I view all points of view equally...... but at the same time, I feel free to challenge those arguments or put forward counter arguments as I see fit.   I consider this to be my liberty as a free citizen.

To the moderators of this site I say:  Do with this thread what you will.   You either allow it to run it's course with vigorous discussion or you repress it and risk being accused accordingly.   The choice is yours.


Well we used to have some quite free chats on this site, but they usually got out of hand.

Hence an entire part of the forum was shut.

I think the moderators don't want that to happen as this site is, predominantly, a sports site.

Duty281

Posts : 20679
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 24
Location : Not having Chance on here

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by kingraf on Sun 12 Jan 2014, 7:05 am

yeah, I remember the old N & CA forum... I completely agree with it being closed, could have single handedly destroyed the forum
kingraf
kingraf
raf
raf

Posts : 16124
Join date : 2012-06-06
Age : 25
Location : To you I am there. To me I am here.... is it possible that I'm everywhere?

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by Champagne_Socialist on Sun 12 Jan 2014, 9:23 am

it got closed because certain posters were just throwing around insults and being aggressive towards other posters. If everyone can just debate the issue and not resort to insulting other posters it should be fine.


Champagne_Socialist

Posts : 4961
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 32

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by westisbest on Sun 12 Jan 2014, 10:17 pm

Champagne_Socialist wrote:it got closed because certain posters were just throwing around insults and being aggressive towards other posters. If everyone can just debate the issue and not resort to insulting other posters it should be fine.

Well said. Very true.


westisbest

Posts : 7105
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Bournemouth

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by westisbest on Sun 12 Jan 2014, 10:19 pm

Freek.

Never knew you were a dad.

Good man.

You may have mentioned it before, never registered.

westisbest

Posts : 7105
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Bournemouth

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by jbeadlesbigrighthand on Mon 13 Jan 2014, 12:50 pm

Champagne_Socialist wrote:Whatever you think about Mark Duggan, 500 people attended a vigil for him today in Tottenham. That is a great response from the local community who came together to show their support for Mark who was a very well known and clearly a very well liked person in his community.

Whether or not he had a lot of friends is not much of a character reference. The fact that he had a gun on him when he was killed suggests that he was most likely not a pillar of the local community.

That said, I'd concur with Fourth Lion's views on this matter. Regardless of whether or not Duggan was involved in organised crime, the police should not kill people other than to protect lives in immediate danger. If Duggan was a criminal, then he should have been arrested and tried. Executions such as this suggest to me either incompetence on the part of armed police, or else a blatant disregard for the legal process.

While I can understand people not shedding a tear for Mark Duggan, what I can't understand is people's blasé attitudes towards abuses of power by the police. Civil liberties have been infringed massively over the last 10 or so years, through policies such as stop and search, ASBOs, anti-terror laws. A police force that executes criminals in the street is more likely to act in an arrogant and aggressive manner to all citizens, and to abuse those (growing) powers it has.

jbeadlesbigrighthand

Posts : 719
Join date : 2011-06-30

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by jbeadlesbigrighthand on Mon 13 Jan 2014, 12:58 pm

Lumbering_Jack wrote:More of a no-nonsense approach is needed. Ultimately, criminals will never like police, so why should the police be nice to them.

To pick up on this line from the OP. The police don't deal with criminals. They deal with suspects.

jbeadlesbigrighthand

Posts : 719
Join date : 2011-06-30

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by Champagne_Socialist on Mon 13 Jan 2014, 1:45 pm

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:
Lumbering_Jack wrote:More of a no-nonsense approach is needed. Ultimately, criminals will never like police, so why should the police be nice to them.

To pick up on this line from the OP. The police don't deal with criminals. They deal with suspects.

excellent quote and very true.

Champagne_Socialist

Posts : 4961
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 32

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by Guest on Mon 13 Jan 2014, 5:07 pm

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:
Lumbering_Jack wrote:More of a no-nonsense approach is needed. Ultimately, criminals will never like police, so why should the police be nice to them.

To pick up on this line from the OP. The police don't deal with criminals. They deal with suspects.
Excellent point.

Of course if a policeman sees a man running towards him with a Samurai sword in his hand, and sees that Samurai sword moving along a trajectory that will cut his head off, then I believe he is allowed to take appropriate action against the "suspect".

If the Samurai wielding "suspect" is found to be insane then I believe he cannot be labelled a "criminal" even if convicted ??


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by Champagne_Socialist on Mon 13 Jan 2014, 5:10 pm

Nore Staat wrote:
jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:
Lumbering_Jack wrote:More of a no-nonsense approach is needed. Ultimately, criminals will never like police, so why should the police be nice to them.

To pick up on this line from the OP. The police don't deal with criminals. They deal with suspects.
Excellent point.

Of course if a policeman sees a man running towards him with a Samurai sword in his hand, and sees that Samurai sword moving along a trajectory that will cut his head off, then I believe he is allowed to take appropriate action against the "suspect".

If the Samurai wielding "suspect" is found to be insane then I believe he cannot be labelled a "criminal" even if convicted ??


Even if he was not insane he is not a criminal as he has not been convicted for the offence. An arrest is not a conviction.

Champagne_Socialist

Posts : 4961
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 32

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by TopHat24/7 on Mon 13 Jan 2014, 5:24 pm

Could still be a criminal, just not a criminal for that offence.

And again, that's a massive technically, even if it is one based on the cornerstone of our legal system - innocent until proven guilty. As soon as you commit an offence you are a criminal and guilty, it's just it hasn't been proven yet by a court of law.

TopHat24/7

Posts : 17008
Join date : 2011-07-01
Age : 35
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by Champagne_Socialist on Mon 13 Jan 2014, 5:27 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:Could still be a criminal, just not a criminal for that offence.

And again, that's a massive technically, even if it is one based on the cornerstone of our legal system - innocent until proven guilty.  As soon as you commit an offence you are a criminal and guilty, it's just it hasn't been proven yet by a court of law.

So if it hasn't been proven in a court of law then you are not a criminal because you haven't been proven to be one. Allegations of criminality does not make someone a criminal.

Champagne_Socialist

Posts : 4961
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 32

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by The Fourth Lion on Tue 14 Jan 2014, 7:16 pm

Champagne_Socialist wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:Could still be a criminal, just not a criminal for that offence.

And again, that's a massive technically, even if it is one based on the cornerstone of our legal system - innocent until proven guilty.  As soon as you commit an offence you are a criminal and guilty, it's just it hasn't been proven yet by a court of law.

So if it hasn't been proven in a court of law then you are not a criminal because you haven't been proven to be one. Allegations of criminality does not make someone a criminal.


Quite correct, CS. So..... let me toss another bone into the pot, purely for the sake of discussion.

Should suspects be given anonymity? After all, they have not yet been convicted of anything and in this modern day of mass hysteria over crime in general, but particularly heinous crime in particular, the mere allegation of a particular offence can have very serious consequences for an individual.

As the old saying goes: Mud sticks. The loss of confidence and trust in a person, even when the allegations are found to be groundless can cause the individual to be shunned from society, or turned down for jobs, voluntary work or membership of groups, associations and the like. It isn't nice to be black-balled for something you didn't do.

The publicity that surrounds an allegation can be extremely traumatic. The police are not averse to smashing people's doors in at 6 in the morning, having first alerted the snappers, so how do you think it feels for them to be driven away in a police car, with the flashes of the cameras in their eyes and their neighbours watching it all. Imagine what they does to people.

On the other hand, if a person is found not guilty then they are (or should be) protected by the law. They cannot be dismissed from their job, and if they are "edged" out, then they can sue for unfair dismissal. Anybody slandering them with the matter can be prosecuted and vigilante acts are prosecuted with the utmost severity by the courts.

So.... there are two sides to this question. What are the feelings of the group on this one. Should suspects be given anonymity until they are proven guilty and convicted..?
The Fourth Lion
The Fourth Lion

Posts : 835
Join date : 2013-10-27
Location : South Coast

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by ShahenshahG on Tue 14 Jan 2014, 7:18 pm

yes

ShahenshahG

Posts : 15637
Join date : 2011-02-11
Age : 33
Location : The happiest man a morning ever sees

http://www.wwwdotcom.com

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by Hibbz on Tue 14 Jan 2014, 8:54 pm

Champagne_Socialist wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:Could still be a criminal, just not a criminal for that offence.

And again, that's a massive technically, even if it is one based on the cornerstone of our legal system - innocent until proven guilty.  As soon as you commit an offence you are a criminal and guilty, it's just it hasn't been proven yet by a court of law.

So if it hasn't been proven in a court of law then you are not a criminal because you haven't been proven to be one. Allegations of criminality does not make someone a criminal.

You can quite easily be a criminal without being convicted. If I go out right now and steal something I am surely automatically a criminal. Just because I am yet to be caught/convicted doesn't change the fact I have committed a crime and am as such a criminal.

Hibbz
hibbz
hibbz

Posts : 2101
Join date : 2011-01-27
Location : Right here.

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by Lumbering_Jack on Tue 14 Jan 2014, 10:15 pm

He had a gun on him. He was a criminal.

Lumbering_Jack

Posts : 4341
Join date : 2011-03-07
Location : Newcastle

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by Champagne_Socialist on Tue 14 Jan 2014, 11:40 pm

Hibbz wrote:
Champagne_Socialist wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:Could still be a criminal, just not a criminal for that offence.

And again, that's a massive technically, even if it is one based on the cornerstone of our legal system - innocent until proven guilty.  As soon as you commit an offence you are a criminal and guilty, it's just it hasn't been proven yet by a court of law.

So if it hasn't been proven in a court of law then you are not a criminal because you haven't been proven to be one. Allegations of criminality does not make someone a criminal.

You can quite easily be a criminal without being convicted. If I go out right now and steal something I am surely automatically a criminal. Just because I am yet to be caught/convicted doesn't change the fact I have committed a crime and am as such a criminal.

Well the issue is about accusing others of being a criminal and an accusation of criminality does not equal criminal.

In your example the easy answer would be to say that you are a criminal as you stole something. But there are many defences to theft such as self defence (being forced to steal due to threats eg the bankers who were forced to help criminals steal money from the bank they worked in). Mental health issues which would say that you are not guilty due to reason of insanity. Other defences such as not knowing you were stealing the item, a mistaken belief that you owned the item.

If you steal something you are not automatically a criminal.

Champagne_Socialist

Posts : 4961
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 32

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by Guest on Wed 15 Jan 2014, 12:25 am

Not all offences are "crimes".
For a crime to have taken place (an offence against the "public") you need to prove mens rea (guilty mind).  

Sometimes you can carry a gun and kill someone without being criminal ... which is what happened with Mr "V53" apparently.  Similarly drone bombing villages in Pakistan is not considered a crime (okay that bit is a bit off topic).

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by The Fourth Lion on Wed 15 Jan 2014, 4:13 am

Lumbering_Jack wrote:He had a gun on him. He was a criminal.


Objection, M'lud.   The issue of whether he had the gun in his possession has not been established.

The gun was allegedly (according to the police) found in the field.  If it was in the field it could not have been in the accused's possession at the time of his shooting.  If it was in his possession, he could not have thrown it post mortem.  The position of the body in the taxi at the moment of shooting renders it physically impossible for it to have been thrown as a reflex action on being shot.

As a matter of interest, over the weekend, I asked a friend of mine in the legal profession as to his opinion of the jury's decision on this point and he said that if the issue was raised in a criminal court proceeding, the questioning of the police would have been a lot more probative and it is highly probable that if they had given the same answers, the judges summing up would have cast extreme doubt on the validity of those answers.  He may even have instructed the jury to find Duggan not guilty..... the police's evidence was that dodgy.

We have to remember that in a criminal court, the standard of evidential proof required to satisfy a jury beyond all reasonable doubt is (quite rightly, in my opinion) very high indeed.  The police provided no such proof.

As it was, the inquest did not go into the same depth of questioning that would be required in a criminal court, the officers were not under oath and the defendant was dead and therefore could not give his side of the story.  A very shaky foundation on which to ascertain guilt of anything, but as it was, this suited the police right down to the ground.

I'm sorry Jack, but with these things in mind, in a criminal court, the judge would sustain my objection and instruct the jury to ignore your comment.
The Fourth Lion
The Fourth Lion

Posts : 835
Join date : 2013-10-27
Location : South Coast

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by Lumbering_Jack on Wed 15 Jan 2014, 8:38 am

Semantics...

Lumbering_Jack

Posts : 4341
Join date : 2011-03-07
Location : Newcastle

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by Rowley on Wed 15 Jan 2014, 8:55 am

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Semantics...

What, that the whole basis of your argument has not been established, yeah these people who focus on trifling little details do my head in.

Rowley
Admin
Admin

Posts : 22053
Join date : 2011-02-17
Age : 46
Location : I'm just a symptom of the modern decay that's gnawing at the heart of this country.

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by kingraf on Wed 15 Jan 2014, 9:00 am

Justifying public executions by arguing that a suspect is a criminal is a slippery slope. It starts with Mark Duggan, it ends with hoping to god the police have their facts 100% before they corner you...
kingraf
kingraf
raf
raf

Posts : 16124
Join date : 2012-06-06
Age : 25
Location : To you I am there. To me I am here.... is it possible that I'm everywhere?

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by Guest on Wed 15 Jan 2014, 9:40 am

The days of public lynching have long gone. These days there are things like due process.

Many things that appear in newspapers and the television nowadays are distortions of the truth, half truths, falsehoods and speculation. One needs to be wary of formulating opinion based on newspapers & television alone.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by jbeadlesbigrighthand on Wed 15 Jan 2014, 9:56 am

Lumbering_Jack wrote:He had a gun on him. He was a criminal.

No. The Police say he had a gun on him. You may believe them. As it happens, I absolutely do. However, it is not the Police's job to assess guilt or innocence. How on earth can a society operate with a police force that is also judge and jury? Would you want to entrust them with those powers? Do you think that it would result in more miscarriages of justice, or fewer?

jbeadlesbigrighthand

Posts : 719
Join date : 2011-06-30

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by seanmichaels on Wed 15 Jan 2014, 10:27 am

I think I heard on the telly this morning that the Met police are going to consult the Duggan family on their stop and search procedures. I think it is a shame that the feinting goats were unavailable to help but the Duggan's will no doubt offer similar levels of wisdom on the matter.

seanmichaels
seanmichaels
seanmichaels

Posts : 13319
Join date : 2012-05-25
Location : Virgin

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by Enforcer on Wed 15 Jan 2014, 10:40 am

The Fourth Lion wrote:
Nore Staat wrote:
The Fourth Lion wrote: ....

And why would it be pulled...?   Because the prevailing establishment view is being challenged...?    Because those interested in justice are having their say and it is uncomfortable for those who would deny the right of free thought and speech..?

You could be right.  This thread may, indeed, be pulled.

And what would that say about those who run this site..?


People can't make unfounded accusations as that is libel.  You need to add things like "allegedly" or "it seems like" or "in my opinion".  You just can't make "assertions" that are unproven.  Anyway I am not a moderator - so I don't know what gets pulled or what doesn't.

ps it is happening on both sides of the argument - some are making assertions about Mark Duggan that are unproven while others are making assertions about the police that are unproven.  There are some facts e.g. police statements that have been shown to be false ... but you can't prove that it was a "lie" as it could have been an "honest mistake" due to "not seeing things clearly".



Ahhhh, the muddying of the waters. "Honest mistake".   "not seeing things clearly".    Britain's prisons are full of people who made "honest mistakes" or "didn't see things clearly".   But it's a pretty safe bet that none of those people were ever armed police officers.  

You are quite right, I cannot prove or disprove what was, or wasn't a lie in the case of Mark Duggan.   With regard to allegations made in other posts on this thread, such as the Plebgate affair, I can say such things because (in that instance) the officer concerned has, himself, said he lied.   Q.E.D.   With relation to other things such as the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, those convictions were quashed after appeals revealed that the police fabricated evidence, so those instances are pretty safe too. Stefan Kiszko's conviction was posthumously overturned.   I'll give you three guesses why.  The original inquest verdict into the Hillsborough tragedy has also been overturned because.... guess what..... the police have been found to have lied.  

Do I really need to put "allegedly" in front of statements about police dishonesty...?   Nah.

If the Metropolitan Police want to sue me for libel, then let them.  That would bring the Mark Duggan issue into the civil court and then they would have to give evidence on oath, in open court, and be identified in person.       Do you think officer V57 or whatever he was called in the Duggan inquest would like to do that...?   Especially if the Duggan family were sitting in the public gallery.  Being named in open court would allow the press to report it on the front page of every newspaper in the country.   Do you really think he would want that..?  

Nah.   Quite the opposite, methinks.

As for this thread, well, I have no control over what is done with it or not.  But if it does get pulled then I have already had my say and made my opinions known.  Those who wish to disagree with me are at liberty to do so.  That is the purpose of discussion, and without dissent, there is no discussion.   So I welcome disagreement and I view all points of view equally...... but at the same time, I feel free to challenge those arguments or put forward counter arguments as I see fit.   I consider this to be my liberty as a free citizen.

To the moderators of this site I say:  Do with this thread what you will.   You either allow it to run it's course with vigorous discussion or you repress it and risk being accused accordingly.   The choice is yours.


Fourth Lion, you say if the Met Police want to sue you they can. That's all well and good but in the cases we have previously had of legal complaints it wasn't the member in question who was on the phone to companies legal teams and in contact with the investigating officer - it was members of the admin team.

If you feel that strongly about wanting to accuse the police of lying then by all means set up your own website and do it to your hearts content.

I am not a legal expert, neither am I inclined to read three pages of a news article to see if it should stay on the forum for legal reasons when I helped to setup a sports forum - not a news one. It stated quite clearly at the start of the thread that it wasn't opened to discuss the facts of the case, that hasn't been listened to.

If you want to accuse me of repression, by all means feel free - however please do so on a site that has a section dedicated to that. I am merely covering the backsides of the admin team (including me) and locking the thread.

Enforcer
Founder
Founder

Posts : 3588
Join date : 2011-01-25
Age : 34
Location : Cardiff

Back to top Go down

Mark Duggan - Page 3 Empty Re: Mark Duggan

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

Back to top


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