Cybershooters Forum Index Cybershooters
The internet's leading source of information for shooters
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Hunter safety training and licensing in the UK question
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cybershooters Forum Index -> Field Sports and Pest Control
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob wrote:
Quote:
The main differences, as I'm sure you know; are 'good reason' and the additional test of 'fit to be entrusted.'

And what extra level of public safety do these provide? Is a person who is fit to own a shotgun not fit to own a rifle, and vice versa?

Clearly Parliament and the Courts on occasion think not. I've seen people retain SGC's but lose FAC's.
Rob wrote:
Quote:
Extra bureaucratic controls? Getting a photo and storing your shot guns securely?

Plus individual registration of each gun, the major change of the 1988 Act with regard to shotguns surely?

In any meaningful sense, s2 gives all the "control" any government could reasonably require. It is a testament to the bureaucratic rigidity of the British state that s1 controls have been more or less unchanged since 1920. As it stands, about 80% of guns are held under s2, only 20% under s1. If s1 controls were brought in for shotguns, the system would probably collapse. The only reason we have the current s1 controls on rifles is because that's the way it's always been, and of course the Home Office mindset that "controls are good".

Not exactly hard is it, writing down which shot guns you have every five years. The major change I would have said is security.

I don't doubt there is a mindset that controls are good, but shooters only ever see each other and they all think (except on occasion) they are all wonderful. I wouldn't revoke or refuse anyone if they were all not a problem. Having said that, it is only a 10% that comes across my desk
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:
Mick F wrote:
Extra bureaucratic controls? Getting a photo and storing your shot guns securely?


The main impact of the 1988 Act was on section 2 controls; the principal changes made were to prohibit or put in section 1 large numbers of guns that were in section 2 previously and to introduce registration.

As I worked out at some length in my submission, these new provisions failed quite badly. If you assume the same number of guns owned by a shotgun certificate holder prior to the 1988 Act (as they weren't registered back then) as now, and take into account how many were surrendered or put on FAC then something like a third of shotguns were unaccounted for.

That point keeps on getting rolled out and all I can say is seizures and surrenders simply don't reflect it. Unless i have evidence to the contrary I consider it a fallacy that there are thousands of Section 5 (folding or 'none stock') shot guns hidden under floorboards.
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob wrote:
Quote:
I doubt it, it's already done that way in Northern Ireland and Jersey and if you look at the stats the average SGC holder only owns two shotguns.

Can you imagine if the police had to "approve" all the land used by shotgun owners?

The fact is that s1 is a bureaucratic monstrosity which has never been subjected to a meaningful cost/benefit analysis. It's there because it's there, no other reason.

Depends on resources. If we had the resources to do the job, it can be done. In the PSNI, they have the resources. I can't say it has favour with many of us though. What would it achieve? The only thing really would be the repeal of part of Section 28 (1B):
28(1B) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1A) above an applicant shall, in particular, be regarded as having a good reason if the gun is intended to be used for sporting or competition purposes or for shooting vermin; and an application shall not be refused by virtue of that paragraph merely because the applicant intends neither to use the gun himself nor to lend it for anyone else to use.
The so called 'HURD initiative' when he realised he may lose his shot guns.
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rob



Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
Location: Cheshire

PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Clearly Parliament and the Courts on occasion think not. I've seen people retain SGC's but lose FAC's.


Quite, but does it make any sense? I can't see why anyone fit to own a shotgun is in any way unfit to own a rifle, and vice versa.

Quote:
Not exactly hard is it, writing down which shot guns you have every five years. The major change I would have said is security.


I agree the security requirement was a major change of the 1988 Act. The combination of the security requirement and individual registration means that shotguns are regulated as much as anyone could reasonably require, and I cannot see any good reason why rifles are treated differently.

Quote:
That point keeps on getting rolled out and all I can say is seizures and surrenders simply don't reflect it. Unless i have evidence to the contrary I consider it a fallacy that there are thousands of Section 5 (folding or 'none stock') shot guns hidden under floorboards.


They must have gone somewhere. We know from the Proof House the sort of numbers sold, and we know the numbers handed in, held on s1 or converted to s2, and the numbers don't match do they?

Quote:
Depends on resources. If we had the resources to do the job, it can be done.


By "resources" you mean if shooters got screwed through the fees charged! But seriously, what good would it do? We don't have territorial chacks for the 80% of firearms which are s2, why are they so necessary for the 20% which are s1?

As I said, s1 controls were introduced without any debate or consultation in 1920, and have remained in place without any meaningful cost/benefit analysis ever since. That's a tribute to the bureaucratic inertia of the British civil service, but I would argue that a system devised to avert a Bolshevik revolution has long ago ceased to be "fit for purpose".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4589

PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick F wrote:
Why is it a bogus argument? Many shooters are killed in France every year even though they have safety courses. If such a regime was applioed here would it make the UK any safer? Or is it the licensing regime in those countries that allows so many deaths?


Hunting is far more popular in France, so by definition they're going to have more accidents.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the French system is a nirvana by any stretch of the imagination, it's just as antiquated and crap as the UK system, and ditto the Spanish system and the Italian system is genuinely a bureaucratic nightmare. The only one I would say is arguably more sensible is the German system.

However having said that they're not crap because of the training requirement, they're crap for other reasons. In the guidance it says that FEOs should generally inspect the land a person is going to shoot over until they're confident the FAC holder is trustworthy, then the condition can be amended to say "any land over which the holder has permission to shoot".

That is in essence an informal training requirement. I think if it was made a formal training requirement then the applicant for a certificate could be assessed on the basis of that training and then fiddling about with FAC conditions wouldn't be necessary and section 2-type controls on rifles would be a possibility.

I know West Midlands Police used to basically require that anyone who owned a section 1 firearm must be a member of a gun club, even if they only wanted it for pest control. That is once again a backdoor training requirement.
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4589

PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick F wrote:
That point keeps on getting rolled out and all I can say is seizures and surrenders simply don't reflect it. Unless i have evidence to the contrary I consider it a fallacy that there are thousands of Section 5 (folding or 'none stock') shot guns hidden under floorboards.
Cheers
Mick F


Not section 5, I agree on that, I'm talking about ordinary double-barrel shotguns that are unaccounted for. It's not likely the population of shotguns was massively different in characteristics before or after the 1988 Act, it's the number of shotguns unaccounted for we're talking about. Certainly there were numbers of pump-action and semi-automatic and "downconverted" shotguns that were not surrendered or converted, but no doubt the most common type possessed at the time and now are double-barrel shotguns.

As you say, I'm not the first person to make this calculation, it's a fairly simple equation. David Penn pointed it out at the Dunblane Public Inquiry and the Home Affairs Committee asked the Home Office about it during the 1996 review.

You have to assume that on average that every SGC holder had at least one shotgun prior to the 1988 Act and I think the current figure of two is more likely. I can't remember the total decline in SGCs off-hand but it was several hundred thousand so that means several hundred thousand shotguns should have changed hands.

640 shotguns were surrendered; about 2,000 were put on FAC. So that doesn't account for them. In their response to the HAC, the Home Office said they thought they would likely have been surrendered to dealers, but at a minimum we're talking about 300,000 shotguns (more likely twice that) and there were 3,000 RFDs at the time, so that works out to 100+ shotguns per dealer. That didn't happen, there's no evidence that it did and I've spoken to plenty of RFDs about it.

The only other possible explanation is that very large numbers of shotguns were transferred to other people who continued to hold SGCs. I'm sure that did happen, but not on the necessary scale because the stats now show the average number of shotguns held to be two per certificate holder. And I was around back then, I don't remember anyone offering me or anyone else their shotgun.

Basic arithmetic tells you that a huge number of shotguns are unaccounted for. In the formal amnesties held since then, overwhelmingly shotguns are turned in so I don't think it's our imaginations.
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4589

PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick F wrote:
The so called 'HURD initiative' when he realised he may lose his shot guns.


I thought that bit was because of collectors. The 1992 changes allow people to keep shotguns disguised as other objects on their SGC but they cannot use them, so by definition a shotgun certificate can be held by someone who never uses their gun.
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4589

PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob wrote:
Can you imagine if the police had to "approve" all the land used by shotgun owners?


But they don't have to, thinking about it I've spoken to people with section 1 shotguns for pest control and their land was never inspected.

But yes, section 1 controls on shotguns don't really work which was a point I made about as strongly as I could make to the Govt. of Jersey, and Derek Bernard reckons that several thousand shotguns were never put on FAC when the requirement was introduced in 2000. The Chief Constable actually said the police would need no extra resources in order to manage shotguns put on FAC (bear in mind Jersey had controls less restrictive than pre-1988 controls prior to 2000 on shotguns).

Well he was right in a way, they didn't need extra resources because compliance was minimal. Even by their own estimates large numbers of shotguns were not put on FAC, they just compared the number of port d'armes issued with FACs and the numbers don't match. I worked out at the time to do interviews with all the people who had been issued port d'armes if their FEOs could manage an average of several people every weekday, their firearms dept. would need to hire three more people for a few years. AFAIK they didn't hire anyone, which mathematically doesn't add up.

So by definition if you want to unify controls for shotguns and rifles you have to go in the direction of the current shotgun controls because shotguns are more common and the rifle controls won't really work with shotguns.

However never assume that Governments cannot do wasteful things that are totally illogical, because believe me they can and they have!
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob wrote:
Quote:
Clearly Parliament and the Courts on occasion think not. I've seen people retain SGC's but lose FAC's.

Quite, but does it make any sense? I can't see why anyone fit to own a shotgun is in any way unfit to own a rifle, and vice versa.

probably because you have mass shootings with rifles (clock tower comes to mind) and not with shot guns (off the top of my head). One is lethal over a mile, the other isn't.
Rob wrote:
Quote:
Not exactly hard is it, writing down which shot guns you have every five years. The major change I would have said is security.

I agree the security requirement was a major change of the 1988 Act. The combination of the security requirement and individual registration means that shotguns are regulated as much as anyone could reasonably require, and I cannot see any good reason why rifles are treated differently.

As above really.
Rob wrote:
Quote:
That point keeps on getting rolled out and all I can say is seizures and surrenders simply don't reflect it. Unless i have evidence to the contrary I consider it a fallacy that there are thousands of Section 5 (folding or 'none stock') shot guns hidden under floorboards.

They must have gone somewhere. We know from the Proof House the sort of numbers sold, and we know the numbers handed in, held on s1 or converted to s2, and the numbers don't match do they?

They don't match the figures provided by the gun trade. We didn't know how many there were out there. the only info is what the trade have told us.
Rob wrote:
Quote:
Depends on resources. If we had the resources to do the job, it can be done.

By "resources" you mean if shooters got screwed through the fees charged! But seriously, what good would it do? We don't have territorial chacks for the 80% of firearms which are s2, why are they so necessary for the 20% which are s1?

I'd hardly call 8 a year 'screwed.' If you actually had full cost recovery and we were all resourced the same, you might have a point.
Rob wrote:
As I said, s1 controls were introduced without any debate or consultation in 1920, and have remained in place without any meaningful cost/benefit analysis ever since. That's a tribute to the bureaucratic inertia of the British civil service, but I would argue that a system devised to avert a Bolshevik revolution has long ago ceased to be "fit for purpose".

Couldn't agree more but there is absolutely no political will to have a full CBA and in todays economic crisis I hardly see spending (guesstimate) 1M to make controls less appealing to any party.
cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:
Mick F wrote:
That point keeps on getting rolled out and all I can say is seizures and surrenders simply don't reflect it. Unless i have evidence to the contrary I consider it a fallacy that there are thousands of Section 5 (folding or 'none stock') shot guns hidden under floorboards.
Cheers
Mick F


Not section 5, I agree on that, I'm talking about ordinary double-barrel shotguns that are unaccounted for. It's not likely the population of shotguns was massively different in characteristics before or after the 1988 Act, it's the number of shotguns unaccounted for we're talking about. Certainly there were numbers of pump-action and semi-automatic and "downconverted" shotguns that were not surrendered or converted, but no doubt the most common type possessed at the time and now are double-barrel shotguns.

As you say, I'm not the first person to make this calculation, it's a fairly simple equation. David Penn pointed it out at the Dunblane Public Inquiry and the Home Affairs Committee asked the Home Office about it during the 1996 review.

You have to assume that on average that every SGC holder had at least one shotgun prior to the 1988 Act and I think the current figure of two is more likely. I can't remember the total decline in SGCs off-hand but it was several hundred thousand so that means several hundred thousand shotguns should have changed hands.

640 shotguns were surrendered; about 2,000 were put on FAC. So that doesn't account for them. In their response to the HAC, the Home Office said they thought they would likely have been surrendered to dealers, but at a minimum we're talking about 300,000 shotguns (more likely twice that) and there were 3,000 RFDs at the time, so that works out to 100+ shotguns per dealer. That didn't happen, there's no evidence that it did and I've spoken to plenty of RFDs about it.

The only other possible explanation is that very large numbers of shotguns were transferred to other people who continued to hold SGCs. I'm sure that did happen, but not on the necessary scale because the stats now show the average number of shotguns held to be two per certificate holder. And I was around back then, I don't remember anyone offering me or anyone else their shotgun.

Basic arithmetic tells you that a huge number of shotguns are unaccounted for. In the formal amnesties held since then, overwhelmingly shotguns are turned in so I don't think it's our imaginations.

I always though the Section five ones are what everyone goes on about ie the short barrel and/or folding stock variants. There may be hundreds if not thousands missing from registration in 1988 of 'straightforward' S2 shot guns, but seeing as we get about 200 surrendered a year and thousands in during amnesties, I guess that figure is dropping on a daily basis. 90% of our surrenders are rusty old shot guns and air rifles. Multiply that by 51 and ......
cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:
Mick F wrote:
The so called 'HURD initiative' when he realised he may lose his shot guns.

I thought that bit was because of collectors. The 1992 changes allow people to keep shotguns disguised as other objects on their SGC but they cannot use them, so by definition a shotgun certificate can be held by someone who never uses their gun.

That was the reason given. However ........ I don't have a problem with genuine collections at all. However, who states it's a genuine collection rather than five rusty old lumps of metal with bits of wood attached?
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:
Mick F wrote:
Why is it a bogus argument? Many shooters are killed in France every year even though they have safety courses. If such a regime was applioed here would it make the UK any safer? Or is it the licensing regime in those countries that allows so many deaths?


Hunting is far more popular in France, so by definition they're going to have more accidents.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the French system is a nirvana by any stretch of the imagination, it's just as antiquated and crap as the UK system, and ditto the Spanish system and the Italian system is genuinely a bureaucratic nightmare. The only one I would say is arguably more sensible is the German system.

However having said that they're not crap because of the training requirement, they're crap for other reasons. In the guidance it says that FEOs should generally inspect the land a person is going to shoot over until they're confident the FAC holder is trustworthy, then the condition can be amended to say "any land over which the holder has permission to shoot".

That is in essence an informal training requirement. I think if it was made a formal training requirement then the applicant for a certificate could be assessed on the basis of that training and then fiddling about with FAC conditions wouldn't be necessary and section 2-type controls on rifles would be a possibility.

I know West Midlands Police used to basically require that anyone who owned a section 1 firearm must be a member of a gun club, even if they only wanted it for pest control. That is once again a backdoor training requirement.

West Mids had quite a few differences, but i can't see them upholding the club membership for people who want to shoot vermin. It may have happened in one or two cases when you genuinely have concerns.

I've got a film clip of French hunters firing at a wild boar. let's just say if they were actually trying to hit each other, they wouldn't have done a better job. When the French (and many other continentals) come over here they're surprised at the visible amount of wildlife. getting excited about seeing five bunnies on the verge of a motorway! It's a different mindset where they want to shoot everything. a friend of mine over there put down 200 or so pheasants in a copse for his syndicate. I think he's seen about four and his falcon has only taken one. The locals come up and shoot the hell out of the place.

I disagree on land being a 'training requirement.' It's more along the lines of 'we've seen the land and we consider it safe for 'jo bloggs.' Normally, you'd go round the land with the applicant so he knows where to shoot from and towards. If that's training, I've been doing the wrong kind of 'facilitation' for over thirty years! ie a practical lesson is explanation, demonstration, imitation, practice. This is how you do a gate vault, show how to do a gate vault, walk through a gate vault, do a gate vault.
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rob



Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
Location: Cheshire

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
probably because you have mass shootings with rifles (clock tower comes to mind) and not with shot guns (off the top of my head). One is lethal over a mile, the other isn't.


I hardly think that's much of an argument. Is someone fit to own a shotgun which is lethal out to 50 or 100 yards, but too dodgy to own a rifle lethal to a mile?

The only reason for the different treatment is that in 1920 the authorities wanted to keep military style weapons out of the hands of the great unwashed, but were not bothered about shotguns. It was an exercise in mass disarmament, nothing to do with whether an individual might cause more mayhem with a rifle than a shotgun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4589

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick F wrote:
probably because you have mass shootings with rifles (clock tower comes to mind) and not with shot guns (off the top of my head). One is lethal over a mile, the other isn't.


That's the reason for wanting conditions for rifles, but a shotgun can be used for mass murder just as easily, I can think of a great many instances where it happened. For example the shootings in Monkseaton in 1990. The only reason he didn't kill more people (he shot 17, killed one) was because he only had birdshot. There was a guy in France around the same time who shot dead a dozen people with a double barrel shotgun.

Just to be relevant to the thread, George lives in a jurisdiction that has handgun registration, and a pensioner walked into a Federal courthouse there the other day and opened fire with a shotgun and killed a security guard.

Given how urban the UK is, you do have to recognize that there is a potential threat to public safety from rifles that shotguns don't pose, but like I said I think a formal training requirement would be a better way of trying to address it than a paragraph on a piece of paper that the police fiddle with. This is how it is typically done in most other countries.
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4589

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick F wrote:
West Mids had quite a few differences, but i can't see them upholding the club membership for people who want to shoot vermin. It may have happened in one or two cases when you genuinely have concerns.


Seemed to be pretty general to me from talking to other FAC holders, I even applied once for a .22 rifle for pest control in West Mids at one point and the FEO told me they probably wouldn't even entertain it if I wasn't already a member of a gun club, same thing happened to my cousin. The only people I'm aware of who had pest control authority without being members of a club were people who had moved into the area from somewhere else. Not sure if this is all still happening since Bucknall retired as he was often the origin of some of the more wacky decisions they made.

Quote:
I've got a film clip of French hunters firing at a wild boar. let's just say if they were actually trying to hit each other, they wouldn't have done a better job.


If it's more popular, they're more likely to have accidents, obviously.

Quote:
If that's training, I've been doing the wrong kind of 'facilitation' for over thirty years!


No, it's not training, it's an assessment as to whether they're safe. Assessment could be part of a training requirement. If you had a good training course followed by a test then you could safely assume the applicant knows where it's safe to shoot and under what circumstances, so the FAC restrictions would be unnecessary and unified section 2-style controls would be a possibility.

My objection to training has always been that one of the associations would co-opt it and then use it to justify their existence rather than providing a decent service to shooters on their own merits. A very good example indeed being the FFTir in France.

But it can be done, there are plenty of other examples:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/hscsg.pdf

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/safe_sur/cour-eng.htm

http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firearms/arms-code.pdf

http://www.police.vic.gov.au/files/documents/390_Firearms-Safety-Code.pdf

http://www.nio.gov.uk/guidance_on_northern_ireland_firearms_controls_revised_01_june_2006.pdf (page 12 and 139)
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cybershooters Forum Index -> Field Sports and Pest Control All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 2 of 13

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group