Pre Corbyn Exodus

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 pec 25 Nov 2019

As well as the super rich who are lined up on the starting blocks to get out as fast as possible should Labour win ( https://tinyurl.com/yxf7r2v3 ), some companies have decided they can't risk waiting to find out the result and have moved offshore to insulate themselves a far as possible from Corbyn's grasp.  https://tinyurl.com/tfuek82

Two moved already with others making plans. Looks like Macdonell might have to dust off his plans from 2017 to deal with a run on the pound and capital flight. https://tinyurl.com/sljmd2d

Who will they tax when many of the 5% they had their eyes on are sitting on a beach in Monaco?

Post edited at 21:22
44
 Rob Exile Ward 25 Nov 2019
In reply to pec:

Crikey. What a thoughtful and considered post. I don't know where to start, so I shan't.

No chance you will be joining the exodus, is there?

13
 balmybaldwin 25 Nov 2019
In reply to pec:

This is a bit rich when the Tories have already crashed the pound with Brexit, and are now seeking to make it worse with Boris' cliff edge in a year

13
In reply to pec:

Last time we lost the drummer from Genesis and, eventually, the racist comedian. No great loss. 

Hold on, didn't we lose Dyson overseas too? Something to do with not-Brexit but possibly Brexit. 

Don't know what the worry is if, according to most of the media, Labour can't win.

It's almost as if some other looming disaster is about to happen. Obviously not Brexit.

5
 Dax H 25 Nov 2019
In reply to pec:

It says a lot to me that companies that were willing to stick around for brexit are planning to bail if Labour get in. 

2
 colinakmc 25 Nov 2019
In reply to pec:

Troll alert.

7
 FactorXXX 25 Nov 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Crikey. What a thoughtful and considered post. I don't know where to start, so I shan't.

You don't think the content of the two linked articles is potentially a concern if it is replicated by more high tax payers and businesses? 

In reply to balmybaldwin:

> This is a bit rich when the Tories have already crashed the pound with Brexit, and are now seeking to make it worse with Boris' cliff edge in a year

pec's fascinating array of news reports sounds like Project Fear 2.0 only in reverse. But if Project Fear 1.0 taught us anything, it's that we have nothing to fear. 

4
In reply to pec:

If they're not willing to pay their way, frankly they can pish off, no great loss!

10
 FactorXXX 25 Nov 2019
In reply to Phantom Disliker:

> If they're not willing to pay their way, frankly they can pish off, no great loss!

If the businesses that Labour want to Nationalise leave, then Labour's plans to pay for their manifesto promises can't work.
No great loss?

5
 Rob Exile Ward 25 Nov 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

I don't have a lot of time for Corbyn, but I do know one of the recurring themes of the last 100 years is the threat of companies and individuals who threaten to leave if Labour win an election.

On the evidence of the past the reality has rarely been catastrophic.

5
 elsewhere 25 Nov 2019
In reply to pec:

Vote winner. Lots of houses being sold quickly and lots of promotion opportunities at work. Great for those starting out and progressing in their career.

1
 Jon Stewart 25 Nov 2019
In reply to pec:

I don't believe in Labour's policies - I don't think it's possible to raise nearly that much tax out of the top 5%, and I don't think you can get much at all out of the super-rich (that's what being super-rich is: you can do what the f*ck you like because you can pay for a solution to whatever your problem is, e.g. being asked to pay tax).

I think an ideal society, the greedy would just f*ck off to Monaco, and we could forget they exist. We could have a more pleasant society without grotesque, opulent wealth - and without poverty - by having fair, high tax, high spend policies where everyone, not just the top 5% pay more so we have better schools, better housing, better healthcare, and higher well-being all round.

Rather than seeing the super-rich as a resource we can milk for their resources (an unrealistic view), or as something we should aspire to be (why the hell would we want their gaudy, tasteless tat?) we should simply not include them in our idea of what we value as deserving high status in our society. There's nothing wrong with higher earners at the top of businesses who are providing mass employment, investing in their workforce, building iconic structures in our cities, sponsoring the arts, etc. But if they're just c^nting around in a golden sports car, then they need to f*ck right off from these shores, and remain f*cked off forever, because that is a poisonous influence in society.

(And if anyone thinks of saying anything about "the politics of envy" then don't bother, because I have absolutely no envy whatsoever for anyone who c^nts around in a golden sportscar. That is really not my idea of fun. The people I'm envious of those who can play the Chopin repertoire with heartbreaking emotional impact, make significant contributions to our understanding of human consciousness, or who manage to get out climbing on Northumberland sandstone in perfect conditions every week. Not people who c^nt around in golden sportscars.)

8
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Thank you so much for adding c^nt to my repertoire! 

 Wicamoi 25 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Superb. Have you ever considered a career in politics? I wish you would.

3
Removed User 25 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Err,

I think the point about the super rich anyway, those who have a fortune greater than the GDP of a small country is why should they have all that wealth? If Jeff Bozos hadn't made a success of Amazon someone else would have done much the same thing, same goes for PC operating systems and as for people who amass billions by gambling on the stock exchange why the phuq shouldn't they contribute a substantial part of their winnings back into the society that created the environment in which they enriched themselves?

The only issue I have with Labour's current tax plans is that in a global village the rich can simply move from one tax haven to the next.

2
Removed User 25 Nov 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> If the businesses that Labour want to Nationalise leave, then Labour's plans to pay for their manifesto promises can't work.

No, the reason the electricity companies are setting up offices in Switzerland is that it will ensure they get the market value for their businesses.

1
 Bob Kemp 25 Nov 2019
In reply to Dax H:

If you read the article, they're not planning to bail, they're trying to protect the shareholders against a Labour nationalisation bid that's below market value. Not the same thing. Hard to move the National Grid abroad really. 

1
OP pec 25 Nov 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> No chance you will be joining the exodus, is there?

If only I had enough money to make it worth my while

4
OP pec 25 Nov 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Don't know what the worry is if, according to most of the media, Labour can't win.

Why do you think more haven't jumped ship yet? Watch this space if Labour start to close the opinion poll gap.

11
OP pec 25 Nov 2019
In reply to Phantom Disliker:

> If they're not willing to pay their way, frankly they can pish off, no great loss!


But they do pay, a hell of lot. The richest 1% pay around a third of all income tax, then there's all the taxes their businesses pay.

You might like them to pay more but remember, 45% of something is more than 75% of nothing.

8
OP pec 25 Nov 2019
In reply to Phantom Disliker:

> If they're not willing to pay their way, frankly they can pish off, no great loss!


Well apart from the third of all income tax that they pay. Who will Macdonell have to go after to make up loss?

6
OP pec 25 Nov 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> On the evidence of the past the reality has rarely been catastrophic.

Apart from the 1970s.

6
 birdie num num 25 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

It’s only footballers who cvnt around in golden sports cars 

7
OP pec 25 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I don't believe in Labour's policies - I don't think it's possible to raise nearly that much tax out of the top 5%, and I don't think you can get much at all out of the super-rich (that's what being super-rich is: you can do what the f*ck you like because you can pay for a solution to whatever your problem is, e.g. being asked to pay tax).

>etc.

I admire your honesty and respect your view but I don't think it's a vote winner and Corbyn and Macdonell know it. That's why they're pedalling the lie it can all be paid for by the richest 5%.

BTW, they don't all drive gold plated cars. Oh, and I'm with you on the Chopin, if only I'd practised harder when I ws a kid

1
In reply to pec:

> Apart from the 1970s.

Don't forget the 2010's (whatever they're called - the tennies?). 

1
In reply to pec:

That's a fair point.

To clarify, I think everyone should pay more tax.

The country's on it's knees. We should all be chipping in more; anyone with any disposable income.

3
 the sheep 25 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Bloody well said !

1
 Jon Stewart 25 Nov 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> I think the point about the super rich anyway, those who have a fortune greater than the GDP of a small country is why should they have all that wealth?

It's a not a matter of "should". They do have that wealth because that's a consequence of the economic system, which is the least worst and has many advantages. The c^nting around of the super rich is a disadvantage the system, but I can't think of any realistic policies to stop them that wouldn't have overall negative effects. 

> why the phuq shouldn't they contribute a substantial part of their winnings back into the society that created the environment in which they enriched themselves?

They should. But I can only see that being possible with a degree of international cooperation that no govt can really bring about. 

> The only issue I have with Labour's current tax plans is that in a global village the rich can simply move from one tax haven to the next.

Consensus is that it is just not possible to raise the amount of tax labour need for their policies from the just the top 5%. It's not credible. And why shouldn't the rest pay more anyway, if they can afford it? Why should someone on 80k pay so much more for the better services that someone in 60k uses too? 

OP pec 25 Nov 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Don't forget the 2010's (whatever they're called - the tennies?).


When during the 2010s did lots of companies and wealthy individuals leave because Labour won an election?

Does your capacity to misread, misunderstand and generally not grasp the points being made in a thread know no bounds?

5
pasbury 26 Nov 2019
In reply to pec:

> As well as the super rich who are lined up on the starting blocks to get out as fast as possible should Labour win ( https://tinyurl.com/yxf7r2v3 ), some companies have decided they can't risk waiting to find out the result and have moved offshore to insulate themselves a far as possible from Corbyn's grasp.  https://tinyurl.com/tfuek82

> Two moved already with others making plans. Looks like Macdonell might have to dust off his plans from 2017 to deal with a run on the pound and capital flight. https://tinyurl.com/sljmd2d

> Who will they tax when many of the 5% they had their eyes on are sitting on a beach in Monaco?

Ha ha ha. Brilliantly funny.

In reply to pec:

Surely the Panama Papers showed that all the real GDP is offshore anyway. 

 Toccata 26 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Noble sentiments with which I can only concur. Sadly though pragmatism rears it’s ugly head. 
There’s a saying in business that if you list your 10 most profitable clients and the 10 most difficult (annoying) clients, there will be 5 names common to both lists. In my experience it’s more like 7.

Economic growth is needed to instil investor confidence and it’s obtained on small margins (let’s leave aside the rights and wrongs of relentless push for growth as one country isn’t going to change centuries of global economic development). Government spending is committed in advance and even small changes can make a dramatic swing in borrowing or spending. Drive away a handful of top tax payers and the rest of the country suffers. Less support for the concert hall where Chopin is played, less investment in academia and maybe more tax on the rest of us making that Northumberland trip too expensive.

Wealth inequality is toxic. Make the rich poorer or the poor richer. Yet we have watched global resources pour inexorably into fewer and fewer hands. We have watched successive governments ‘dynamise’ the work force which has left a generation of workers unfamiliar with stability and career structure, and relatively poorer. Economic theory on the Left or Right offers solutions. Economic practice from both camps has failed. The solution is an international discussion on wealth an resources that reduces smash-and-grab capitalism and a steady redistribution of resources. We are not in a position to do this globally but it might have been possible within the EU.

Since 2016 wage growth in the lowest 25% earners has been highest (above inflation). Even The Guardian admitted that reduced competition from EU migration was a factor. This sounds good but if we are to think globally is denying high UK wages to relatively poorer foreign workers actually improving wealth inequality? Indeed if we are thinking globally how do we define wealth inequality? A Uk worker on minimum wage with free health care, National security and a welfare system is far better off than the vast majority of people on the planet. Where do we stop?

An illustration of this confusion lies in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Is this voluntary wealth redistribution? Or is it a man who has worked himself into a position of wealth so he is able to help others? No one disagrees he did a good thing but if we argue against wealth inequality should we argue he should not have been in a position to offer such valuable help? If global wealth was homogeneous rather than concentrated in a few countries would we have hip replacement surgery, vaccines, Titian and even Chopin?

It’s not an easy problem to resolve and it’s clear I’m as confused as most. But I really don’t think unilateral taxation (and consequent expatriation) of the super wealthy is a solution.

2
In reply to pec:

> When during the 2010s did lots of companies and wealthy individuals leave because Labour won an election?

When did I say they did? Just pointing out something that happened as opposed to some madeuup guff about gold super car driving c^nts who might leave if Labour get in (they won't leave). 

Your original piece was set up as fact when actually it's the same phantom bullshit and scare stories. 

If a couple of potential targets have relocated to try and maintain a market value that sums up for me what is wrong with the system. 

> Does your capacity to misread, misunderstand and generally not grasp the points being made in a thread know no bounds?

I think we all understand you just fine, thanks. Your narrow focus is telling. If you find all this annoying you could always, you know, resist the urge to reply. 

Post edited at 07:44
3
 Yanis Nayu 26 Nov 2019
In reply to Dax H:

I’d say there’s a degree of posturing. 

 MonkeyPuzzle 26 Nov 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

National Grid already have offshored registrations across the world. I'm not sure how much this changes and could indeed be posturing.

 Andy Hardy 26 Nov 2019
In reply to pec:

> Who will they tax when many of the 5% they had their eyes on are sitting on a beach in Monaco?

Me. And I'm ok with that.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Who will they tax when many of the 5% they had their eyes on are sitting on a beach in Monaco?

> Me. And I'm ok with

I'll chip in too. £10 a week isn't it? 

Post edited at 08:13
 Duncan Bourne 26 Nov 2019
In reply to pec:

I thought this was the Brexit exodus? Has it been re-branded?

 Duncan Bourne 26 Nov 2019
In reply to pec:

> Apart from the 1970s.


I don't recall many companies leaving then.

1
 summo 26 Nov 2019
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> I don't recall many companies leaving then.

I think investment in the UK was minimal, they didn't fancy dealing with the unions and the UK didn't exactly look an attractive option. It didn't earn the title sick man of Europe without reason. 

Can you name an overseas company that thrived in the UK in that era. There are a few that did Ok, but certainly no thanks to UK policies. 

 Phil1919 26 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I agree with all you say but people don't seem to vote for opinions like yours! 

 jkarran 26 Nov 2019
In reply to pec:

> Who will they tax when many of the 5% they had their eyes on are sitting on a beach in Monaco?

Good job they're losing then isn't it so we the 95% get the Tory version of 'make me poorer' with some added 'strip me of my rights' and 'restart a civil war' as garnish on the side. Bravo.

Do let us know when you've settled into your Monaco pad.

jk

4

> In reply to jkarran:

> pec:

> Who will they tax when many of the 5% they had their eyes on are sitting on a beach in Monaco?

> Good job they're losing then isn't it so we the 95% get the Tory version of 'make me poorer' with some added 'strip me of my rights' and 'restart a civil war' as garnish on the side. Bravo.

https://newsthump.com/2019/11/26/tories-pledge-to-roll-back-labours-disastr...

It was Labour's fault anyway.

> Do let us know when you've settled into your Monaco pad.

> jk

Please don't ask for any crowdfunding to send him off, I'm already chipping in to pay the tax of the quitters.

1
 Ian W 26 Nov 2019
In reply to pec:

> Two moved already with others making plans. Looks like Macdonell might have to dust off his plans from 2017 to deal with a run on the pound and capital flight. https://tinyurl.com/sljmd2d

Just the two? Only 273 to go before the brexit exodus is matched. Oh, sorry, wait, these two have just re-registered overseas, rather than moved operations overseas. Its still 275 to go.

https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/hundreds-of-finance-companies-leave-uk-to...

And thats just in the finance industry............

1
 jkarran 26 Nov 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> I think the point about the super rich anyway, those who have a fortune greater than the GDP of a small country is why should they have all that wealth?

They shouldn't, it concentrates power undemocratically and the trickle-down bollocks is mostly bollocks. The reality is unless you're willing to play really dirty (and I am not suggesting we should, it would probably be a nett negative for our society) they have the resources and influence to protect the vast majority of their hoard.

> ...as for people who amass billions by gambling on the stock exchange why the phuq shouldn't they contribute a substantial part of their winnings back into the society that created the environment in which they enriched themselves?

They should but ditto, we realistically can't.

jk

 Catat10 26 Nov 2019
In reply to pec:

Funny how Brexiteers label any negative forecasts of Brexit as "Project FEAR!!". 

But any negative forecast of their opposition is credible and will, without doubt, completely destroy the economy and British society.  

Luckily others see things differently:

https://www.ft.com/content/d29b4cbe-0fa4-11ea-a225-db2f231cfeae

You may need an ft subscription to see the letter itself.

I know, I know, these are academic experts and they know nothing compared to journalists of The Sun, Daily Mail, Express, etc. or that oracle of wisdom supping a pint of mild in the pub corner.  

1
 Catat10 26 Nov 2019
In reply to Catat10:

Seems the like I posted doesn't work correctly.

If you google: "economists' letter to the financial times" you should get to the article.

Here's a link to the letter, (not sure if it will work for everyone):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YD3R8a7Qi6t9MwSVHiuQ_b7lMmw5GhRO/view

Post edited at 11:03
 rockwing 26 Nov 2019
In reply to pec:

Where do you think the "1%" get their money from to pay into our tax system; by burning fossil fuels, or from the rest of us paying them to burn fossil fuels?


As long as there are customers, there will be companies to provide the service and fill the void.

 Duncan Bourne 26 Nov 2019
In reply to summo:

I can't think of any before that era even.

Certainly Britain had been booming in the 50's and 60's and the 70's saw a slow decline which neither the Tory Heath government nor the Wilson Labour government were able to slow down. Indeed it was around this time that Edward Heath took us into the Common market with the hope of encouraging foreign investment

1
 Jon Stewart 26 Nov 2019
In reply to Toccata:

> Economic growth is needed to instil investor confidence and it’s obtained on small margins...Government spending is committed in advance and even small changes can make a dramatic swing in borrowing or spending. Drive away a handful of top tax payers and the rest of the country suffers. Less support for the concert hall where Chopin is played, less investment in academia and maybe more tax on the rest of us making that Northumberland trip too expensive.

It's a good argument, but I'm not sure I really buy it. I'm arguing that we shouldn't rely so heavily on taxing the super-rich, that we should raise taxes from all those who can afford it - people like me for a start (I'm not going to offer this unilaterally by the way!). I don't believe that we are getting very much out of the people I'm accusing of "c^nting about" - I think these are the ones engaged in creative and abstruse tax avoidance.

(I'm afraid that I can't offer you anything in the way of factual evidence to back this up - maybe someone has something to hand to indicate how wrong or right I am.)

The people who I'm happy to see f*cking off and not coming back are those whose contribution we can do without, because it's minimal in terms of tax take (due to avoidance), and it's negative in terms of cultural and social contribution (grotesque opulence seeping into popular culture as something to be aspired to). I don't think that we should drive away successful business people who are committed to actually doing useful stuff in the country - employing people, for a start. These people won't just to f*ck off to Monaco if the tax rate goes up a bit, because they've got a successful UK-based business to run, and they know that policy will change after a while anyway. It's those who'll do anything to avoid paying tax that we should be prepared and indeed delighted to see the back of.

> Wealth inequality is toxic.

Yes, when it is at the grotesque levels that our current systems generate. 

> The solution is an international discussion on wealth an resources that reduces smash-and-grab capitalism and a steady redistribution of resources. We are not in a position to do this globally but it might have been possible within the EU.

I agree.

> Indeed if we are thinking globally how do we define wealth inequality? A Uk worker on minimum wage with free health care, National security and a welfare system is far better off than the vast majority of people on the planet. Where do we stop?

I think that nation states make an effective size of economic unit within which policies are consistent and within which people see themselves as a part. That's a good place to start. Larger structures, e.g. EU, international laws and treaties can be useful for improving wellbeing globally, but the idea of some unified global government is pretty ridiculous given where we are today. 

> If global wealth was homogeneous rather than concentrated in a few countries would we have hip replacement surgery, vaccines, Titian and even Chopin? It’s not an easy problem to resolve and it’s clear I’m as confused as most. But I really don’t think unilateral taxation (and consequent expatriation) of the super wealthy is a solution.

What I'm arguing for is policies at the nation state level, with international cooperation on international issues such as climate change - and cooperation in collecting taxes. Obviously in the latter case different nations interests aren't aligned, but I think that we can do a lot better to help one another by striking the most beneficial I'll-scratch-your-back deals internationally. Again, I have no evidence for this, but we're *so* bad at it now, we must be able to do better.

I believe that there is an optimal level of wealth inequality: we need motivation to work hard for higher status which equality would wipe out. But we don't need poverty, and we don't need grotesque opulence. These extremes are the failure of our economic system to distribute resources effectively and policies (at the national level) are needed to get rid of both ends of the distribution, so that we can enjoy higher levels of wellbeing.

Post edited at 18:45
OP pec 26 Nov 2019
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> I don't recall many companies leaving then.


No, they were all just going bust, well apart from the nationalised ones which couldn't go bust, they just made the country bust.

It's the wealthy individuals leaving I was talking about. Think back to the rock stars of that era and many of them were tax exiles to avoid the punitive tax rates.

Like I said, 45% of something is more than 95% (as it was then) of nothing.

cb294 26 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I have no idea why we still let states like Monaco, Andorra, Panama, Virgin Islands, parts of the US (Montana with its trusts and Delaware in particular), Liechtenstein, the Channel Islands, etc... get away with stealing taxes that should otherwise be paid in EU countries. 

IMO we should pick a couple of these states, for obvious selfish reasons not Delaware (we can leave this for New York and California to sort out), and block them from using any of our infrastructure. Import food to Liechtenstein or Andorra? That will be several billion Euros first off, thank you very much. Fly over EU airspace? Ditto. Travel to the mainland from Jersey for hospital treatment? No, better f*ck off and die on your bloody island.

Monaco should be bulldozed into the Med first off, pour encourager les autres...

I am only partially joking here, I am utterly sick of these parasite states, and even more sick of our tax fugitives who f*ck off to these places while still directly or indirectly using our services, relying e.g. on our schools and universities to provide them with educated workforces.

CB

2
 summo 26 Nov 2019
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> I can't think of any before that era even.

> Certainly Britain had been booming in the 50's and 60's

If you ignore the bail out / loan that Wilson got from the USA to avoid the pound collapsing in the 60s. 

> and the 70's saw a slow decline which neither the Tory Heath government nor the Wilson Labour government were able to slow down. Indeed it was around this time that Edward Heath took us into the Common market with the hope of encouraging foreign investment

Of course, both parties failed and the imf bailed the UK this time. 

The reality is there wasn't really a golden era to hark back to, just nostalgia where the painful facts have been dulled by time. 

 Duncan Bourne 27 Nov 2019
In reply to pec:

That has always been the case even under tory rule. Industries going down the tube had a lot more to do with the price of oil than who was in government.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/mar/03/1970s-oil-price-shock

1
 Duncan Bourne 27 Nov 2019
In reply to summo:

And if you ignore the hardships brought about through the war

> The reality is there wasn't really a golden era to hark back to, just nostalgia where the painful facts have been dulled by time. 

This is the real truth.

Things have always gone from good times to crisis and very often it was due to things outside the control of any single government.

Some people get crazily nostagic about the 80's

Post edited at 11:08
 DancingOnRock 27 Nov 2019
In reply to summo:

Well, there was 1997-2007 when everything was booming absolutely everywhere. We were all given free money and loans were practically interest free. Of course it was never going to last. Those that did well in the 97-07 period and saved rather than going on spending sprees have managed to ride out austerity which is really why the rich have got richer. 
 

I’m not even sure that the 70s were a direct result of Labour policies. Policies didn’t help but the whole of Europe was suffering the start of a recession as the demand for coal collapsed.

The cycle of boom and bust teaches people to save wisely during good periods and spend wisely during tough times. We have lost that ability. 
 

Post edited at 11:56
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> I can't think of any before that era even.

> Certainly Britain had been booming in the 50's and 60's

There was no 'boom' in the 50s. In the first 6 years of the decade were very austere, extremely impoverished by war debts. There was food and petrol rationing ffs. There was an improvement in 57 and in 58 Macmillan famously said 'You've never had it so good', which was arguably true, but it was still desperately meagre by present-day standards. There was quite a big upturn in the mid to late 60s and then a serious decline in the 70s. 


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...