The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Simon Bromley to be prosecuted for manslaughter - but Les Balkwell wants the charge to be WITHDRAWN

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Simon Bromley to be prosecuted for manslaughter - but Les Balkwell wants the charge to be WITHDRAWN

Post by Tony Bennett on 17.01.14 20:29

On 25 November 2013, Simon Bromley was charged with the offence of causing the death of Lee Balkwell by `gross negligence manslaughter`.

He is the first and only person so far to be charged with causing the death of Lee over 11 years ago.

But his father, Mr Les Balkwell, strenuously objects to this prosecution.

His reason can be explained very simply.

Overwhelming evidence of many different kinds strongly suggests that work on extracting setting concrete from the lorry that night ceased before 9.30pm and did not resume. This evidence includes tachograph evidence, evidence from a 7-hour CCTV seized from the premises that night, evidence from police photographs taken at the scene, and a whole range of other forensic evicdence.

Simon Bromley and fellow family members have always maintained that he and Lee Balkwell carried on working on the lorry after midnight and up to 1.03am (even though it was pitch black and there was no lighting at the lorry) - the moment his death was reported to East of England Ambulance Service by Simon Bromley`s father, David Bromley.   

If Lee Balkwell was not working on the lorry at any time between 9.30pm and 1.03am, as the evidence clearly suggests, then quite obviously his death did not arise from any negligence by Simon Bromley. His death must have been caused by some other event.

Below is a letter that Les Balkwell has been forced to send to the Chairman and Chief Clerk of Essex Magistrates Court, in order to try to avert a prosecution that is contrary to the available evidence.

It does not help matters that David Bromley has been overheard by friends of Les Balkwell boasting around the pubs of South Ockendon that he and his family have stitched up a deal with the police and the CPS whereby Simon Bromley will plead guilty to a false charge (i..e causing death by negligence) and then be handed a light sentence:


From: Mr Leslie W Balkwell                                                        
88 Abbs Cross Lane
RM12  4XW

Monday 13 January 2014

Letter to the Chairman of Essex Magistrates Court  and the Chairman of Basildon Magistrates Court

Via Sian Jones
Chief Clerk of the Court
Essex Magistrates Court
P O Box 10754
CM1  9TZ

Dear Sir/Madam

re: Prosecution of Simon Bromley, charged with (a) the manslaughter of Lee Balkwell by gross negligence and (b) breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, due to appear before an Essex Magistrates Court on 27 January 2014: REQUEST by Lee’s father and family that the prosecution against Simon Bromley for manslaughter by gross negligence be discontinued as there is no evidence to support it 

I am the father of Lee Balkwell, who was reported by Simon Bromley’s father, Mr David Bromley, as ‘hanging out of the back of a cement mixer’ (in fact he was already dead) at 1.03am on Friday 18 July 2002.

I was formally notified by the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service in November 2013, via an adviser, as follows, from Frank Ferguson, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor, East of England CPS, dated 25 November 2013:

“…I am writing to advise you of the decision that has been made following the investigation of the death of Lee Balkwell and the submission of a file to the CPS by the police concerning Simon Bromley. I can now advise you that we have authorised the police to charge Simon Bromley with the manslaughter of Lee Balkwell.  The allegation  is that Mr Bromley’s gross negligence resulted in the death of Lee Balkwell...Simon Bromley will initially appear in the Magistrates Court…” 

I was told by the police that the prosecution would be at Basildon Magistrates Court. However, when enquiries were made recently at Essex Magistrates Court in Chelmsford, they said that 27 January was not a court date at Basildon Magistrates Court and the Clerk said there was no record of a prosecution of Simon Bromley either at Basildon, Chelmsford or Southend, or anywhere else in Essex. With two weeks to go to this hearing, I have no idea where it will be, no-one will give me accurate information. 

I request that this letter to be seen by the Chairman of Essex Magistrates. However, I was not given his/her address. I was told instead to write to Sian Jones, Chief Clerk, Essex Magistrates Court, PO Box 10754, CHELSFORD, CM1  9TZ. I was told: “She will make sure it gets to the right person”.  So I will do what I have been told to do and trust that you, the Chairman of Essex Magistrates, will very shortly see this letter.

I have nothing to say about the prosecution of Simon Bromley for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act. I do not know what the prosecution evidence on that matter is, but I am sure there were probably many breaches. I simply seek your assistance mainly in discontinuing what is a thoroughly dishonest prosecution of Simon Bromley by Kent Police and the East of England CPS of Simon Bromley for the manslaughter of my son on the basis of gross negligence. I deal with the specific evidential issues on page 4 of this letter (in Sections B, C, D, E and F) but first I need to give you some background to this dishonest prosecution.

A.     The relevant background facts

I first of all refer to a recent timeline of events (attached) which summarises a long and complex history in this matter. I have been seeking the truth about how my son died for 11 years and 6 months.

A great deal of circumstantial evidence in the case points to my son having been murdered. The evidence suggests that either the top part of his body (head, arms and shoulders) was placed into the inspection hatch on the concrete mixer drum when he was already dead - or he was placed there, either conscious or unconscious, and then the drum switched on 1.03am in order to kill him. The ambulance, tachograph and CCTV video evidence seized from Baldwins Farm the morning my son was killed all confirm that the mixer drum was turned on at 1.03am, at exactly the same minute that Mr David Bromley telephoned the East of England Ambulance Service. 

I had to wait over 5½ years for the Inquest into my son’s death to be heard. The first date for the Inquest had to be adjourned because Essex Police and the Coroner had appointed a corrupt Coroner’s Officer, Mr Derrick Bines. He was overheard by me on a telephone line to an Essex Police Officer (at Brentwood Police Station) stating that he was going to make sure that the Inquest reached a verdict of accidental death. As a result of representations by my then Solicitors, Mr Chris Bowen and Mr John Tipples, he was dismissed from the case by the Coroner and a new date for the Inquest set. The second date fixed then had to be abandoned because three days before the Inquest was due to start, Essex Police claimed that Mr David Bromley had to be extradited to Saarbrucken in Germany to face alleged robbery charges. Despite my MP James Brokenshire, now a Home Office Minister, taking this matter up with Lord West of Spithead and despite other enquiries, no-one has been able to substantiate Essex Police’s claim.

At a session of the Inquest where the jury was excluded and only the parties and the lawyers present, my barrister Mr Tony Ventham asked the Coroner to allow the jury to consider murder as a possible verdict. He submitted to the Coroner, as I believe is correct, that there was ‘overwhelming circumstantial evidence’ that my son was murdered. The Coroner refused. A 10-person jury then returned a unanimous verdict that my son had been ‘unlawfully killed by gross negligence/manslaughter’.

Photographic evidence exists that persons at the crime scene, almost certainly police officers, removed and then replaced the belt around my son’s jeans prior to his being taken to the mortuary late on 18 July 2002.  Furthermore, six days after my son’s death, there is overwhelming evidence that a control cable rod was deliberately broken, again by police officers. The control rod was unbroken the night my son died. Four separate acknowledged experts, two of them instructed by the police and the Health and Safety Executive, and three of whom all give evidence in the courts as recognised experts, unanimously agreed that the control rod had been deliberately broken and could not have been damaged through normal wear and tear. This was fully in accordance with the evidence of the lorry’s manufacturer, Mr Nick Humpish of Hymix, who has also given evidence. The control rod could therefore only have been broken whilst in the care of Essex Police at OnTime Services, Basildon, where the lorry was photographed on 24 July 2002 by two police officers.

Contrary to normal police procedures, no Scenes of Crime Report was ever produced and, since then, both Essex and Kent Police have fabricated evidence that there was one. I hold a statement (not yet shown to Essex or Kent Police) which confirms that no Scenes of Crime Report was ever done. I am prepared to attend Court to disclose that written evidence to Basildon Magistrates Court should you and your colleagues consider it relevant to your decision.

In addition, the senior officer responsible for the Crime Scene, former Detective Chief Superintendent Gareth Wilson, was evasive at the Inquest about his actions during the early hours of the investigation, and has twice personally been found guilty of misconduct in relation to his actions that night by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in reports available online and dated, respectively, January 2005 and January 2012.

The original Investigating Officer in the case, Detective Sergeant Jason Weald, can be shown to have lied about his actions during the initial investigation. One of those lies has since been formally admitted. The other one can easily be proved.

A third officer, Inspector Richard Croft, was present at and managed the scene of crime on the night my son died. Statements about his movements at the scene that night on the ‘Scene Log’ (taken by an officer at the scene) and the computerised headquarters log (the ‘Storm Incident’), recorded in the Police Control Centre, seriously conflict about the times he was present at the scene. Croft was not able to assist the Inquest with this serious conflict of information because he was at the very same time appearing in court on charges of repeated sexual assaults, including full penetration, on a young girl well under the age of 14. Half way during my son’s Inquest [29 January 2008], he was found guilty and handed a 6-year jail term as a result, the prosecutor, Stephen Dyble, having told Ipswich Crown Court that the girl ‘made a series of efforts to commit suicide’.

Baldwins Farm is widely reputed to have had girls and women available for sex. Essex Police knew about this and also knew about drug-dealing taking place at Baldwins Farm (see below). Kent Police hold a recent statement taken by the Senior Investigating Officer in the case, DCS Lee Catling, from a witness in south Essex in which illegal activities taking place at Baldwins Farm, known to the police, are documented.

Indeed, the very evening that my son was killed, a drug-dealer well-known to the police, Glen Nicholls, was seen on the CCTV tape seized from the Bromleys that night (and which I have seen many times) to deliver a large quantity of cocaine on to the premises and divide it up for distribution. Two other drug-dealers known to the police, one of them Marlon John, were also seen to drive up in their cars that evening and collect quantities of the cocaine. Despite the clear evidence that these images have provided of drug-dealing that night, Essex and Kent Police have for 11½ years denied that this was a delivery of drugs, choosing for reasons they know about to believe the Bromley’s version of events, namely that these known drug-dealers had come to Baldwins Farm to ‘buy some work tools’. Essex Police also told me and my advisers that they accepted Marlon John’s explanation that he ‘had dropped in for a cup of tea on his way home from Northamptonshire to south London’. 

The drugs activity at Baldwins Farm was later subject to a joint Met Police and Essex Police operation, Operation Portwing. That resulted in the conviction of 14 members of a drugs ring which also supplied illegal firearms. Four members of the Bromley family, Glen Nicholls and nine other drug dealers were convicted in 2005 of those offences as a result of Operation Portwing.

During Operation Portwing, I received, anonymously, through my letter box, a mass of paper documentation and three CDs containing complete information about the operation, including (a) detailed mobile ’phone star charts showing the mobile ’phone calls made to and from the mobile ’phones of all the drug dealers, (b) a complete record of the transcriptions of all the telephone conversations between three undercover police officers and the drug dealers (running to thousands of pages) and (c) all other material used (and not used) by the prosecution. The material in these records shows that as well as the 14 people convicted of drug-dealing, there were corrupt police officers, sniffer dog handlers and Customs and Excise Officers involved in facilitating the drugs trade in London, Essex and East Anglia. To my knowledge, none of those people (some of whose names I know) have ever been charged with any offences. I hold these discs and all the information on them in paper records as well, having placed copies of these discs and records with friends. Essex Police have asked me to give them up but I have refused.

Subsequently, I was approached covertly (and separately) by two officers who worked for Essex Police and a branch of the security services, possibly based within the Metropolitan Police (this detail was never disclosed to me). They were fearful of being found out and prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act for their disclosures, but both told me that my son’s murder was being covered up by corrupt Essex Police Officers. They begged me to leave no stone unturned in finding out the truth about my son’s death, saying they were ‘powerless to expose the corruption from the inside, someone on the outside has to do it’. From these officers I also learnt that the then Head of Essex Police Intelligence, Wilson Kennedy, had suppressed mobile ’phone records that proved that my son was killed.

B.     The specific evidence that shows that my son did not lose his life as a result of negligence but did so as a result of one or more deliberate acts 

I cannot take you through all of the overwhelming amount of evidence there is that my son did not die from negligence as it would mean taking you and your colleagues through, amongst many other things:

a)     dozens of police scene and mortuary photographs
b)     the all-important tachograph records,
c)      many witness statements,
d)     many expert reports and

e)     explanations and analysis of
(i)  the workings of concrete mixers
(ii) procedures for gunning-out setting concrete with Kango hammer-drills, and
(iii)  evidence as to how much concrete was actually left to drill out that night (which in fact was very little, necessitating only an hour’s work).

C.     What is agreed between me and the police

1.       My son Lee and his employer, Simon Bromley, began working on drilling out concrete from the lorry at about 8.00pm and were seen to finish at about 9.20pm.
2.      Neither my son nor Simon Bromley is seen on the CCTV tape from around 9.30pm until 11.35pm. They are seen together with other members of the Bromley family to go into the two adjacent bungalows in which the Bromleys live at about 9.30pm.
3.      That at two long meetings at Chatham Police Station in 2011 and 2012 between me, my adviser, the Senior Investigating Officer Det Chief Supt Lee Catling and three other Kent Police Officers, DCS Catling frankly conceded that he found ‘persuasive’ the evidence we presented that that the work of gunning-out the setting concrete in the lorry finished altogether at around 9.20pm to 9.30pm.
4.      At 11.35pm my son is seen on the CCTV tape to walk towards his pick-up truck on his own and drive it off three minutes later
5.      He is seen on the same CCTV  to return in his pick-up truck at precisely 12.00midnight.
6.      As he does so, he tries to park in a certain position near the bungalow. Someone off-camera, presumably a member of the Bromley family, directs him to move his pick-up truck to a position which is off-camera (i.e. which cannot be seen by the CCTV). He does so.
7.      Lee Balkwell is never seen again on the CCTV after this point.
8.     At 12.12am Simon Bromley is seen to leave his bungalow carrying out a brand new ‘lead lamp’ and long lead, in order to light up an area where the lorry is parked (off camera).
9.      There is no evidence of the lorry drum having had lighting before 12.12am.
10.   It was becoming dark after 9.30pm.
11.    No work could have been carried on inside the drum (as claimed) in the dark.
12.   No activity on the lorry or elsewhere can be seen between 12.12am and 12.59am, when for a period of four minutes, the automatic security lights are triggered (by people moving about off-camera) i.e. people are triggering the security lights but who cannot be seen by the static CCTV camera.
13.   That at two meetings at the end of 2012 with Kent Police, attended by myself and my adviser, DCS Catling suddenly - and repeatedly - claimed that he now had ‘compelling evidence’ that gunning-out work on the lorry carried on at an unspecified time after 9.30pm. He refused to say when this was supposed to have occurred, and what evidence he has of this.      

D.    What is not agreed

1.       We say that Kent Police cannot possibly have evidence, ‘compelling’ or otherwise, that my son (or anyone else) was carrying on working on gunning-out the drying concrete beyond the period approx. 9.20pm to 9.30pm. They have certainly never said what it is
2.      We say that there is absolutely overwhelming evidence that statements by various members of the Bromley family about events from 9.30pm onwards that evening are a comprehensive tissues of lies and fabrications. Both Essex and Kent Police forces have always been extremely evasive on this subject. The most they have ever been willing to concede, and then only very reluctantly, is that there are ‘some inconsistencies’
3.      We say that the statements of the Bromley family about (a) what is alleged to have happened after 9.30pm and (b) how the ‘accident’ to Lee is supposed to have occurred are so full of  lies and fabrications that they cannot possibly be relied on to provide a true account of how Lee died.  

E.     The evidence in the letters to the Crown Prosecution Service and to the Police 

Letters have been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service and Kent Police in emphatic terms objecting strongly to the prosecution of Simon Bromley for alleged gross manslaughter/ negligence. These have not produced any satisfactory explanation as to why Simon Bromley is being prosecuted for this offence. I am aware of no evidence to support it, as set out above.

I enclose a specimen letter dated 26 August 2013 from my adviser Anthony Bennett to Mr Frank Ferguson of the CPS,  in which he explains in summary the reason why there is no evidence of negligence and no evidence at all that work on the lorry carried on after 9.20pm to 9.30pm on 17 July 2002 as now claimed by Kent Police and the CPS.

These matters are now the subject of formal investigation by:
A.     The Independent Police Complaints Commission
B.     Kent Police Professional Standards Department and
C.     Mr Stephen Shaw, CBE, Independent Assessor of Complaints for the CPS.

So far as the record of Essex/East of England CPS in this matter is concerned, the following must be put on record. My son was killed on 18 July 2002. The Senior Investigating Officer who conducted the initial investigation into my son’s death was Detective Chief Superintendent Graeme Bull. He signed off the investigation on 23 August 2002 as having concluded that this was a ‘tragic accident’. His Investigating Officer DS Jason Weald began the only interview under caution to have taken place in this case before November 2012 - with Simon Bromley on 6 August 2002  - by telling him: ‘The police view this as a tragic accident’. These two officers were between them found guilty of 12 separate counts of misconduct by the IPCC in their report dated 29 January 2012 - for an investigation described by the IPCC as ‘seriously flawed’.  Yet on 23 August 2002 CPS lawyer Christopher McCann signed off this ‘seriously flawed’ investigation without further ado.

Furthermore, following complaints I made in 2008 about the role of the CPS in this matter, I was offered what I was told was ‘a fully independent’ CPS lawyer from Cambridgeshire to review the case, namely Nick Staite, who remains the CPS lawyer to this day. However, wholly contrary to the promise made to me in 2008 by Mr Ken Caley that I would be given an ‘independent’ CPS lawyer to review the entire case, I learnt to my shock in 2012 that Mr Staite’s line manager was now none other than Christopher McCann, the very CPS lawyer who had rubber-stamped DCS Bull’s ‘seriously flawed’ investigation in the first place.

These and other serious matters concerning the CPS handling of this matter over the past 11½ years are about to be investigated by the independent person who investigates CPS complaints, Mr Stephen Shaw, CBE.

F.     The new evidence of Ian Ward, medical photographer

Attached is a letter from Mr Ian Ward who has seen two enlarged police photographs of my son’s injuries. Mr Ward is a qualified medical photographer, currently a District Councillor on Rochford District Council and Chairman of Rayleigh Town Council. Kent Police are aware of this evidence. Mr Ward notes clear signs of my son having been severely whipped prior to being killed. None of the pathologists so far employed by the Police to prepare reports on my son’s injuries has been able to explain these injuries.

G.    The duty of the Magistrates 

Magistrates are there to see justice and fair play. This includes a duty not to allow a bogus prosecution to proceed where there is clear evidence that the police and CPS are proceeding with a prosecution in support of which there is no evidence. This, I submit, is the case here. And that is the basis on which I invite you to throw out the prosecution of Simon Bromley for alleged negligence. There is no basis for it. I have no objection to Simon Bromley being prosecuted for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

There is, finally, evidence that Essex and Kent Police may all along have been covering up what they know to have been a murder. The IPCC ruled that that allegation was ‘unsubstantiated’.  However, I do have significant additional evidence that this may be the case and at some stage sooner or later, this may well be re-investigated. I would only ask you to bear this in mind as a possibility as you decide on what action to take in this matter. It is at least possible that a deal has been done to deny me and my son justice, namely that the police and CPS will prosecute Bromley for negligence, he will simply plead guilty, he will then get a light sentence, and efforts by the police or independent bodies to uncover the truth about my son’s death will, as a result, be buried for ever. This must not be allowed to happen.      

The Hillsborough enquiry has proved, if proof were needed, that a group of dozens of police officers, led by corrupt men at the top, can conspire to lie and cover up the truth about a situation for long period of time. You now have the power to stop this happening in my case by refusing permission for this prosecution to proceed.

Then perhaps there can be the most rigorous enquiry into my son’s death, something that I am now sure has not been done by Kent Police during the past 3½  years.

I have endeavoured to pass a copy of this letter to Simon Bromley’s lawyers, but no-one can tell me who they are.

have had assistance from Mr Anthony Bennett, M.A., 66 Chippingfield, HARLOW, Essex, CM17 0DJ in the writing of this letter. Please send a copy of any reply to this letter to him as well as to me.

1.       Letter to Frank Ferguson, East of England CPS, 26 August 2013 from Anthony Bennett
2.      An Update on the Investigations into the Death of Lee Balkwell: 12 January 2014
3.      Written report of Ian H Ward, ABPPA (Medical), ASWPP, LBIPP, MInstSMM CIT, dated 8 March 2013.

Yours sincerely.

Leslie W Balkwell

Ten-minute YouTube film about the death of Lee Balkwell here:



The amazing symbiosis between bees and flowers:  

Tony Bennett

Posts : 14977
Reputation : 3029
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Simon Bromley to be prosecuted for manslaughter - but Les Balkwell wants the charge to be WITHDRAWN

Post by Guest on 18.01.14 0:29

Very sad reading that. Les is clearly going to great lengths to get justice for his son. I wish him the best of luck.

Back to top Go down

Re: Simon Bromley to be prosecuted for manslaughter - but Les Balkwell wants the charge to be WITHDRAWN

Post by Rasputin on 18.01.14 8:47

For the life of me I can't understand why Theresa May doesn't flip her lid and say " we need to get this sh#t sorted out " ....public confidence in the powers that be is at an all time low , and after reading the above information its easy to understand why , Les Balkwell is seeking justice for his son , he is also highlighting the corruption that exists in the law enforcement agencies of this country ...on that respect he represents us all , I wish him well, thank you for sharing this with us Tony, good luck .

"I'm not buying it" Wendy Murphy

Posts : 269
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Simon Bromley to be prosecuted for manslaughter - but Les Balkwell wants the charge to be WITHDRAWN

Post by worriedmum on 18.01.14 18:32

What a nightmare for Les Balkwell, I really feel for him. Thank you Tony for all your efforts.

Posts : 1871
Reputation : 462
Join date : 2012-01-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Simon Bromley to be prosecuted for manslaughter - but Les Balkwell wants the charge to be WITHDRAWN

Post by Tony Bennett on 18.01.14 18:46

@Rasputin wrote:Thank you for sharing this with us Tony, good luck .

Many thanks - also for reading through what was a long letter from Les.

If we go back to 18 July 2002, the date of Lee's death, Essex Police immediately spoke to the media and referred to this as a 'tragic accident'.

19 days later, Det Sgt Jason Weald interviewed Simon Bromley under caution, as he was suspected of a criminal offence in relation to Lee's death.

He began this recorded interview with the words: 'The police view this as a tragic accident'. I am sure PeterMac will agree that this was no way to begin an interview with a suspect. And in its reports on the case dated June 2009 and January 2012, the IPCC fully agreed, stating that the entire conduct of the interview amounted to professional misconduct.

A further 17 days after this (23 August), Essex Police and the Senior CPS lawyer, Chirstopher McCann (no relation so far as we know), closed the file, continuing to regard this as a 'tragic accident'. They both advised that none of the Bromley family should be charged with anything. The Health and Safety Executive did however prosecute Simon Bromley for failing to have public liability insurance in resepct of Lee and his other employees.

Then, before the Inquest in 2008, a corrupt Coroner's Officer and former Met Police Officer was overheard to say that he was going to run the Inquest to ensure an 'accidental death' verdict. He clearly had to be sacked - and was.      

The jury was not allowed by the Coroner to bring in a simple verdict of unlawful killing. Instead, they unanimously agreed on the next best verdict for the Balkwell family: manslaughter by gross negligence.

Now, 11.5 years after the event, this prosecution means Les is no further forward. The police are still basically trying to write this off as a 'tragic accident'.

In order to find Simon Bromley guilty of negligently causing Lee's death, they would have to show that he was actually working on the lorry after 9.30pm that evening.

The police cannot do that, and know they cannot do that.

The only way they can close the file on this case is for Simon Bromley to be charged with negligence, and for him to plead guilty. The Bromley family appear, from reports, to be saying that such a deal has already been done.

It would amount to a major injustice to allow this prosecution to succeed, which is why Les is using every legal avenue open to him to try to prevent this serious injustice taking place.


The amazing symbiosis between bees and flowers:  

Tony Bennett

Posts : 14977
Reputation : 3029
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

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