The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by pauline on 28.08.11 23:02

@tigger wrote:
b) the Fund to be a Charity - that must have been a blow as it would have saved them a lot of money.
c)
Tax on every penny of that money has to be paid. I would think that that alone would have run into the tens of thousands, so many people donated.

I don't think they ever intended to get charity status - they had to go thro the motions of seeming to look for it as it would have appeared odd not to do so. You see different rules apply to charity accounts - different rules to those applying to ordinary limited companies which is what the Fund is. You have to disclose more information, there are rules relating to how you fundraise. yes there are tax advantages to charity status - but if your 'expenses' exceed your income you don't pay tax.

not sure about this , open to correction, but i think that last 2 years accounts filed showed a loss - so NO TAX. With all the legal bills, and expenses for Mccanns and relatives travel and other expenses, there might be very little 'profit.'

pauline

Posts : 548
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Hi Pauline,

Post by tigger on 28.08.11 23:11

I'm sure it was the Charities commission which turned them down on the grounds that the charity wouldn't benefit a 'cause' but just one person.
There! you see how wrong they were, looking at all those who have benefited enormously.
The fund was set up in record time. the 7th May 2007 was a bank holiday, yet the whole thing was operative on the 17th or 18th. But most of this work was done by lawyers. I think this is all down in great detail on this site somewhere!
I think they could have used as much money as they liked. Didn't Lady Meyer run a charity and pay herself an enormous salary? No, I think charity status would have been better for them. I think there was some contact between Gerry and Lady Meyer very early on.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by pauline on 28.08.11 23:22

@tigger wrote:I'm sure it was the Charities commission which turned them down on the grounds that the charity wouldn't benefit a 'cause' but just one person.
There! you see how wrong they were, looking at all those who have benefited enormously.
The fund was set up in record time. the 7th May 2007 was a bank holiday, yet the whole thing was operative on the 17th or 18th. But most of this work was done by lawyers. I think this is all down in great detail on this site somewhere!
I think they could have used as much money as they liked. Didn't Lady Meyer run a charity and pay herself an enormous salary? No, I think charity status would have been better for them. I think there was some contact between Gerry and Lady Meyer very early on.

Kate implies in the book that this was the case as just one person was involved but the speed of the setting up, and they fact they they never tried later for charity status tells me they did not want it. yes they would like the tax advantages, but they wouldn't have wanted the restrictions (for them) that went with it. I'm sure they could have got it with some redrafting - all those lawyers could have come up with a formula to suit the Charity Commisssion surely?

Don't know about Lady Meyer but certainly know of charities where the CEO is more than well paid. But you cant be a director of a charity and an employee (ie on salary) as far as I know, and I think the Mccanns wanted to control the Board. Brother John was the first Chairman of the Board and now three out of the six board members are family. being a charity is better from a PR point of view but most people think the Fund is a charity so they have the best of both worlds.

pauline

Posts : 548
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Hi Pauline,

Post by tigger on 29.08.11 6:38


Fund refused charitable status and forced to pay tax, 20 May 2007

Algarve police 'hung up' on one suspect Sunday Times

John Follain and Steven Swinford, Praia da Luz
May 20, 2007

Extract:

Tax blow for search fund

In addition, the fund will not benefit from gift aid, a form of tax relief that allows charities to claim from the government an additional 28p for every £1 they receive in donations. And tax will have to be paid on all interest accrued by the fund.

Last night the Treasury refused to intervene, insisting it was the preserve of HM Revenue & Customs to decide tax liability.

The development will embarrass Gordon Brown who told Madeleine’s family last week he would do all he could to help on "a practical and a personal level".

The decision on charitable status could hit the family's efforts to trace Madeleine. Her parents Kate and Gerry are considering hiring a private investigator amid concern over the way police have handled the hunt. A FUND to finance the international search for Madeleine McCann will be forced to pay Vat and denied tax breaks worth tens of thousands of pounds after being refused charitable status writes Mark Macaskill.

The Madeleine fund has already received almost £80,000 from the public and businesses. Madeleine's parents had hoped for charity status for the fund but were turned down by the Charity Commission because the money raised is not for the "wider public good".

Instead, the fund has been registered as a company, which means it is liable to pay Vat at 17.5% on advertising costs and goods designed to raise funds, such as stickers. Charities are eligible for "zero rate" tax relief on such expenses.

The Charity Commission denies claims made in The Times, May 2007

Maddy's Fund rejection story 'misreported' says Commission Charity News Alert (link no longer available)

Gareth Jones
May, 2007

Looks like you're right, I got other info, quite detailed earlier, which obviously isn't quite right. This is why this site is so good! thanks. although the more I read about these people, the sicker it makes me.



The Charity Commission has denied a report in The Times newspaper that it refused to award charitable status to the fund set up by the parents of missing child Madeleine McCann to finance the international search effort.

The Commission was quoted in the article as saying the money raised was not for the "wider public good", but has told Charity News Alert the story had been "misreported".
"We were first approached for our advice about the possibility of a fund to assist the parents' search on Monday 14 May," explained a spokeswoman for the Commission. "We held discussions with the family's lawyers and in the end they decided not to pursue that route."

Since the disappearance of Madeleine from a holiday villa in the Algarve, Portugal, on 3 May, the story has captured the public's sympathy and filled column inches in both the tabloids and the broadsheets. The search fund, known as Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned, has so far raised over £184,000 from the public and businesses.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by Miraflores on 29.08.11 7:27

The Commission was quoted in the article as saying the money raised was
not for the "wider public good", but has told Charity News Alert the
story had been "misreported".
"We were first approached for our
advice about the possibility of a fund to assist the parents' search on
Monday 14 May," explained a spokeswoman for the Commission. "We held
discussions with the family's lawyers and in the end they decided not to
pursue that route."

It's good that the Charity Commission was in a position to put their side of the story. Unfortunately it's not widely known enough, so the McCann version gets bandied about.

The whole business of the 'charity' set up to 'find Madeleine' is so typical of the way the wider 'team McCann' works. It reminded me of Gerry McCann's oft repeated statement that 'no police force is looking for Madeleine', conveniently omitting to tell us the case had to be shelved because they refused to cooperate.

Or the latest piece of nonsense from Kate that the Tapas Bar was only 49.2 metres away from the apartment. No doubt perfectly true, but irrelevant unless they had developed x-ray eyes to see through the building to the back and had grown wings so that they could fly to the children in case of trouble.

Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by Gillyspot on 29.08.11 10:33

@Miraflores wrote:
The Commission was quoted in the article as saying the money raised was
not for the "wider public good", but has told Charity News Alert the
story had been "misreported".
"We were first approached for our
advice about the possibility of a fund to assist the parents' search on
Monday 14 May," explained a spokeswoman for the Commission. "We held
discussions with the family's lawyers and in the end they decided not to
pursue that route."

It's good that the Charity Commission was in a position to put their side of the story. Unfortunately it's not widely known enough, so the McCann version gets bandied about.

The whole business of the 'charity' set up to 'find Madeleine' is so typical of the way the wider 'team McCann' works. It reminded me of Gerry McCann's oft repeated statement that 'no police force is looking for Madeleine', conveniently omitting to tell us the case had to be shelved because they refused to cooperate.

Also Gordon Brown must have been disappointed that his meddling didn't work on this occasion

"Gordon Brown has pledged his support. Last Friday John McCann was dining with friends when Downing Street called to say that the Chancellor was on the line. Minutes later Mr McCann’s mobile – on which he takes hundreds of calls daily – ran out of power, cutting off Britain’s next Prime Minister in mid-sentence. Yesterday morning, as Mr McCann was talking to The Times, his mobile rang again. It was Revenue & Customs, calling at Mr Brown’s request to discuss how the fund could gain charitable status."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1821286.ece

Although I personally think they had no intention of registering it as a charity as the level of accountability & transparency on money spent is very high with a charity and although the "fund" offers these things in practice they disclose no more than any other private limited company.

Attached is the Institute of Fundraising's guidelines on charitable accountability but below is a sample of the text.

"Transparency applies across all fundraising activities but charities may wish to consider that fundraising statements or requests that imply or state that a donation will make a specific
impact have a greater potential to mislead.  

• Charities SHOULD be transparent about how donations will be used.  

• Charities SHOULD NOT imply in their fundraising and marketing
communications that a donation will be used for a specified purpose if it will be used for general funds.  

• If restricted fundraising is taking place, or an impression is given that the gift
will be restricted, then the intended use of the gift OUGHT to be stated
clearly and prominently.  

• Any conditions or alternative uses for a gift SHOULD also be explained clearly.

• Charities SHOULD monitor and manage restricted fundraising activities and
SHOULD communicate clearly with donors so that donors understand how
their money will be used.  

• Charities SHOULD ensure proper stewardship of all contributions and MUST
ensure that restricted donations are used to support the cause in accordance
with the donor's intentions, and reasonable expectations.  

http://www.institute-of-fundraising.org.uk/Resources/Institute%20of%20Fundraising/Codes/Accountability%20and%20Transparency%20-%20CHECK.pdf

I have attached a link from this institute because the Mccann's have one to this organisation on their website. Albeit that the link is a duff one.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_the_campaign/index.html

Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by tigger on 29.08.11 14:34

miraflores wrote:
Or the latest piece of nonsense from Kate that the Tapas Bar was only 49.2 metres away from the apartment. No doubt perfectly true, but irrelevant unless they had developed x-ray eyes to see through the building to the back and had grown wings so that they could fly to the children in case of trouble.

Miraflores

80 cm is one biggish step, must make all the difference.




tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by lj on 29.08.11 16:24

from above
Yesterday morning, as Mr McCann was talking to The Times, his mobile rang again. It was Revenue & Customs, calling at Mr Brown’s request to discuss how the fund could gain charitable status."

Sad the Chancellor has no idea about charities.

I bet he knows everything about milking the system, because it was clearly an attempt at that.

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3274
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by Me on 30.08.11 14:00

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:Me, you will now upset the members of PFA2 who believe you are Tony Bennett and that your article was written by Tony and one of the pro's have sent it to Carter Ruck.



This post is from PFA2 http://www.pfa2.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8372



Ah...Bennett's latest trick: write a defamatory article about the McCanns, dump it in Havern forum under another nick (sock), wait if the item is picked up by the pros, then Bennett pulls the article quickly, so it's not Bennett, but the pros spreading libel and defamation, nothing to do with Bennett, because the article is nowhere to find in his forum, only on the pros websites, and meanwhile his rubbish is distributed.

I have been informed this article has already being seen by Carter Ruck, another reason not to publish this story. Besides that the article is boring, incorrect and inaccurate information, pure speculation as part of the ongoing smearcampaign from Bennett and his cronies, against the Tapas friends and the parents of the missing child Madeleine McCann.

Ha! Just had another look on that forum, and their unsavoury and slavish obsession with Bennett means they are utterly convinced I am Tony Bennett hiding and posting under an alternative sobriquet.

From reading the posts (I know not easy to do, but someone had to do it) here’s their theory:

Because Bennett’s under constant “libel watch” over there from the newly formed Carter Ruck Supporters Club, they are convinced that he has created an alter ego (me) on here simply to post items not under his own name so as not to alert the self-styled libel hunters over there.

Then, their mangy conspiracy theory goes, he / me pulls the article from this forum once it has been copied and posted onto their forum so as not to be accused of libel, and then somehow, inexplicably, pinning the blame back onto the pro forum itself for displaying an article that is no longer available here!

Still with me? And they think every anti is a conspiracy theory obsessed nutter!! Sweet baby Jesus! The level of neurotic paranoia apparently is unlimited.

Let’s not forget the other nugget from their thread about my post.

First some timelines. I originally wrote the post on Friday and uploaded it around midnight. On Saturday morning at around 10.00 am it was put into its own thread by the mods here.

I then asked the mods if they could take it down because I wanted to make some changes to it before it went in its own thread (it was originally written as a reply for another thread). It was pulled around 10.20 am

These changes and other events on Saturday meant I couldn’t get it posted back up until midnight Saturday evening.

However according to the postings on that forum, those charming people at Carter Ruck, who appear to be doing for free speech and justice what the Boston strangler did for door to door salesmen , were aware of my post on Saturday morning as well!

So the article was up for no more than 10 hours, most of which were the dead of night, and still Carter Ruck were "aware of it"!

I’m now wondering if Carter Ruck are the new fourth emergency service, on call all hours, day or night and especially at weekends?

In relation to this lunatic theory that I am Tony Bennett, I have to say I feel a Spartacus moment coming on.

I’M TONY BENNETT (come on everybody, all join in)

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 30.08.11 14:06

@Me wrote:I’M TONY BENNETT (come on everybody, all join in)

Oh no you're not!! clown clown party party

Gimme an 'O', gimme an 'H', gimme an 'N', gimme an 'O'....

cheerleader cheerleader cheerleader cheerleader

Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 7107
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 30.08.11 14:08

@Me wrote:However according to the postings on that forum, those charming people at Carter Ruck, who appear to be doing for free speech and justice what the Boston strangler did for door to door salesmen , were aware of my post on Saturday morning as well!

spit coffee

Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 7107
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by Guest on 30.08.11 14:12

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
@Me wrote:However according to the postings on that forum, those charming people at Carter Ruck, who appear to be doing for free speech and justice what the Boston strangler did for door to door salesmen , were aware of my post on Saturday morning as well!







Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by Guest on 30.08.11 14:14

No I'm Tony Bennett..

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 30.08.11 14:16

Stella wrote: I'm Tony Bennett..

Oh no you're not!! clown clown party party

Gimme an 'O', gimme an 'H', gimme an 'N', gimme an 'O'....

cheerleader cheerleader cheerleader cheerleader

Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 7107
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by Me on 30.08.11 14:16

Stella wrote: I'm Tony Bennett..

That's the spirit!!

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by Guest on 30.08.11 14:31



I'm Sparticus, opps I forgot, I'm the real Tony Bennett.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by Guest on 30.08.11 14:32

@Me wrote:
Stella wrote: I'm Tony Bennett..

That's the spirit!!



And I'm Me

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Identity problems

Post by Guest on 30.08.11 17:55

Will the real Slim Shady stand up as well please?




Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by Me on 30.08.11 19:29

Ha ha! The menagerie of unadulterated gimpery continues unabated over there on what now appears to be a forum masquerading as the Provisional Wing of the Team McCann Army. This latest pearl of wisdom has been posted in all its rambling finery.

My my what a hissy fit exited little man at Hellhole....all hot air. We all know that Bennett hides behind other nicks.

Discounting for a moment what on earth “exited little man” means (is that prison slang i wonder), how do they know Bennett hides under my username? Answer? They don’t, but they’re that unhinged about Bennett they’ll simply dream up any crackpot theory, despite having no proof whatsoever, in order to fuel the warped and frankly disturbed crusade that appears to be getting them all giddy over there at the moment.




It is also no news that half the Hellhole board consists of non-existing members, lot of socks that never posts, but do carry on dreaming about a fictitious number of members.

How desperate, pathetic and laughable.
I think this may be English, but I’m not entirely certain. I recognise the words but I can’t make sense of them in that particular order. It may be something to do with forum numbers but I’m not sure nor am I certain what relevance it has to the article I posted. Perhaps it’s some kind of willy waving over who has the most members, in a forlorn attempt to not actually counter the points made in the article itself but to simply humiliate us over the number of members using this forum?

Whatever floats your boat, I couldn’t care less.

Now we get to the crux of the matter for this particular wise and learned oracle who presents us with irrefutable and damning proof, once and for all, as to why I am indeed Tony Bennett.

You did it yourself, little man. Your post shows all the similarities with what we are used to with Bennett in three ways:
1. It is booooooooooooooooooring
2. It contains libel and defamation
3. I bet you recently had one of your libellious stories pulled, ......like Bennett...Spudgun I presume.... ???

So let’s have a look at these devastating and incisive revelations one by one.

1) Well it’s clear to see that many on the pro boards struggle with reading anything over three lines long, and I think that may just be what we’re seeing here. Perhaps the next article / post I write I’ll include some nice pretty pictures of babies or puppies to keep those poor afflicted souls, with the attention span of a goldfish entertained right to the end. In fact criticism of my post from a Pro - and indeed the creation of a thread in my honour on a pro board - is just about the highest praise I can receive for that article, but this particular intellectual heavyweight is a bit too dense to realise that. Had he / she said that they actually approved of the article I'd have pulled the damn thing down myself in a fit of pique and abject humiliation.


2) Here we go look, this point backs up precisely the theme of my post about the disciples and their new careers as the unofficial Carter Ruck Outreach Department. I’d like this particular barrack room lawyer to detail his or her legal qualifications and then highlight which parts of my post are libellous and defamatory and to provide reasoning to support this. I will however, even in advance of receiving his or her detailed and evidentiary based proof of libel, advise that in response I intend to reply using the precedent set in the famous libel case of Arkell v Pressdram. I am sure that as a knowledgeable legal eagle this particular poster will not need to Google that case in order to understand the precise nature of my defence.

3) How much do you want to bet that i haven’t had anything I’ve written about this case taken down? £1000, £10,000? I will take any size of bet with you with the winnings going to charity - no not the one you’re thinking, I mean a REAL charity which is accountable and transparent and is not a “charity” masquerading as a missing child business / Carter Ruck war chest. The question is then are you man or woman enough to take the bet?

The only similarity my posts have with Tony’s, and I think this is where this particular poster is getting confused, is in the way we both use letters, words and punctuation when we write. In much the same way I’m a similar person to Tony Bennett because we both have heads!

Because anyone with half a brain can see that my writing style is nothing like Bennett’s, Spudgun's or indeed anyone else's for heaven’s sake.

But by all means let them keep dreaming up their lunatic and crackpot theories if it regulates the bitterness and the bile to the necessary levels of outrage they need in order to get through life.

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by Me on 30.08.11 19:35

Jean wrote:Will the real Slim Shady stand up as well please?




That's some pretty impressive "yoof culture" knowledge for a a 61 year old! "U iz down wiv da kidz, innit"

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by Guest on 30.08.11 19:39

@Me wrote:1) Well it’s clear to see that many on the pro boards struggle with reading anything over three lines long, and I think that may just be what we’re seeing here. Perhaps the next article / post I write I’ll include some nice pretty pictures of babies or puppies to keep those poor afflicted souls, with the attention span of a goldfish entertained right to the end.




Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by Gillyspot on 30.08.11 19:48

And what is it with them all calling us "socks"? On twitter Chicane the thick is always calling me a SOCK!

What??

Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 30.08.11 19:55

I think those on PFA2 and JATYK forget that quite a few of our members/lurkers are actually them in disguise...especially muratfan and his many ID's. Mr

Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 7107
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Put a sock in it please!

Post by Guest on 30.08.11 20:22

You learn something new every day - this time it's that harmless item of footwear is now a term of insult for those of us who are a little too old to believe the fanciful stories put out by Team McCann.



However, Me, I'm not too old to know who Eminem is but he is about the extent of my knowledge of the rap scene!



Let's all of us stand up and say "I'm me" as that is indeed true - with acknowledgement to Julie Andrews, me is a name I call myself.



Earplugs may be needed soon to deaden the noise of all the cages of Team McCann which you - meaning Me - have rattled!




Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

Post by Me on 30.08.11 20:31

For those wondering about Arkell vs Pressdram (and for that semiliterate legal gimp over there) here’s an explanation - apologies in advance for the language **mods please amend if necessary**:

This case is well known among lawyers and journalists, especially the phrase "I refer you to the reply given in Arkell and Pressdram". Basically, it refers to a legal case whereby Mr Arkell was accused by British satirical magazine Private Eye of illicit payments’ After printing the allegations, they received the following letter:

Solicitors' letter to Private Eye:

We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd.

His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory.

We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.


The reply that the Eye sent back was:

We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell.

We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: f**k off

(Me: original letter did not have asterisks, amended by me!!)

No further correspondence was received.

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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