|
Post by PotterLog on Jul 16, 2015 1:45:59 GMT
doz, you seem to be using a lot of words to say not very much here... who is trying to "impose today's moral compass" on the actions of the past? And how, specifically? Who is saying that anything should happen other than him being tried under the laws of the day? And do you believe it was morally acceptable (and/or legal) in 1988 to forcibly restrain a child and penetrate his rectum, in any context? If not, what's the issue? I think it's pretty clear what I'm saying mate, with respect. There are lots of things that are (strictly speaking) illegal but which still happen and which many don't have any great problem with. If you've actually read my posts I'm sure you'll see that I haven't (for one second) tried to say that what you describe was anything other than unacceptable and illegal. I do however, think we should be careful about talking in these terms about an incident which an indivual has ALLEDGED took place and I have agreed that the law should take it's course in this case. If proven, it's clear as crystal that a very serious assault took place and those responsible will be held to account. Where I have something of a problem is with those who refuse to accept that incidents like this (if not quite this serious) have, in the past, often been accepted as 'workplace high jinx'. That is, in no way, trying to justify such behaviour but simply pointing out that it was often ACCEPTED (by and large) even if it was wrong and or/illegal. I have only ever stated on here that such behaviour was WRONG but, by and large, I wouldn't want to revisit it and condemn those involved in what was (at the time) accepted. I don't want to use the description you used because NO-ONE would seek to justify that but there was an awful lot that used to go on in changing rooms, Military establishments and factories that was seen as 'acceptable' in years gone by. Whilst not wishing to justify it I don't think we should pretend that it didn't happen or that the bulk of people saw little wrong with it at the time. It's all to easy to look back 30/40 years and condemn people for behaviour we now find unacceptable. Clearly it's impossible to answer the question you posed with anything other than condemnation but you'd have to extend it to ask if it was ever acceptable to smear axle grease on apprentice's bollocks or scrub naked young soldiers in a bathtub with a yardbrush and OF COURSE the answer is NO it was never right but it DID happen all the time. So would I agree with going back to prosecute everyone who ever participated in such activities....well no I wouldn't if I'm honest because it was different times and, like it or not, it was deemed acceptable at the time by a great many people. It's not clear to me doz, really. On the one hand you say that morality was different back then and certain things were "acceptable" which aren't now (obviously - who's denying that?), and then on the other hand you concede that this allegation is too serious to fall into that category - so why the preoccupation with it in the first place? It just seems to muddy the water. I don't really know what you mean by "we should be careful about talking in these terms" about the incident. What terms exactly, and why the pains taken to avoid talking about them? The allegation is very clear, and I think most people would agree (despite the apologism sometimes displayed on here) that it goes beyond the regular workplace "high jinx" of the day, in both moral and legal terms - as you have stated yourself. We've all had a bit of "treatment" in our time, a good deal of which would have certainly crossed the legal line. I just don't see what difference that makes to the practicalities of this case - or why we have to "be careful" when we talk about it.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Jul 16, 2015 2:13:08 GMT
I think it's pretty clear what I'm saying mate, with respect. There are lots of things that are (strictly speaking) illegal but which still happen and which many don't have any great problem with. If you've actually read my posts I'm sure you'll see that I haven't (for one second) tried to say that what you describe was anything other than unacceptable and illegal. I do however, think we should be careful about talking in these terms about an incident which an indivual has ALLEDGED took place and I have agreed that the law should take it's course in this case. If proven, it's clear as crystal that a very serious assault took place and those responsible will be held to account. Where I have something of a problem is with those who refuse to accept that incidents like this (if not quite this serious) have, in the past, often been accepted as 'workplace high jinx'. That is, in no way, trying to justify such behaviour but simply pointing out that it was often ACCEPTED (by and large) even if it was wrong and or/illegal. I have only ever stated on here that such behaviour was WRONG but, by and large, I wouldn't want to revisit it and condemn those involved in what was (at the time) accepted. I don't want to use the description you used because NO-ONE would seek to justify that but there was an awful lot that used to go on in changing rooms, Military establishments and factories that was seen as 'acceptable' in years gone by. Whilst not wishing to justify it I don't think we should pretend that it didn't happen or that the bulk of people saw little wrong with it at the time. It's all to easy to look back 30/40 years and condemn people for behaviour we now find unacceptable. Clearly it's impossible to answer the question you posed with anything other than condemnation but you'd have to extend it to ask if it was ever acceptable to smear axle grease on apprentice's bollocks or scrub naked young soldiers in a bathtub with a yardbrush and OF COURSE the answer is NO it was never right but it DID happen all the time. So would I agree with going back to prosecute everyone who ever participated in such activities....well no I wouldn't if I'm honest because it was different times and, like it or not, it was deemed acceptable at the time by a great many people. It's not clear to me doz, really. On the one hand you say that morality was different back then and certain things were "acceptable" which aren't now (obviously - who's denying that?), and then on the other hand you concede that this allegation is too serious to fall into that category - so why the preoccupation with it in the first place? It just seems to muddy the water. I don't really know what you mean by "we should be careful about talking in these terms" about the incident. What terms exactly, and why the pains taken to avoid talking about them? The allegation is very clear, and I think most people would agree (despite the apologism sometimes displayed on here) that it goes beyond the regular workplace "high jinx" of the day, in both moral and legal terms - as you have stated yourself. We've all had a bit of "treatment" in our time, a good deal of which would have certainly crossed the legal line. I just don't see what difference that makes to the practicalities of this case - or why we have to "be careful" when we talk about it. I don't have a 'preoccupation' with this allegation mate and I've been very consistent with my opinion that (if proven) those involved should be held to account. I made a SEPERATE (though possibly relevant) point about posters getting too 'hung up' on what we now deem unacceptable behaviour which was, at one time, pretty universally accepted. That's why I used my own experience of 'high jinx' in the workplace, particularly in the old pottery factories where (in all honesty) women got away with murder. In reality, they could have found themselves in very serious trouble if we applied today's viewpoint to what they got up to back then. I made it clear that I wasn't using that to, in any way, justify this particular case but simply stating that I have an issue with applying today's viewpoint to issues that really weren't an issue at the time. The confusion arises because we don't actually know what happened here (hence my urging people to be careful). I have urged people to simply be a bit 'careful' because all we have at the moment is an ALLEGATION and nothing has been proved. If it turns out to be proven true then it is a very serious matter but I'll reserve my judgement on that because I don't know if this actually HAPPENED or if it was a case of the type of workplace high jinx I have been talking about, that has been exaggerated for whatever personal reason an individual might have. At the moment BOTH options are possible but some are talking as if the only possible explaination here is that a very serious crime has been committed. It may well have been but we don't know that yet.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Jul 16, 2015 2:35:10 GMT
It's not clear to me doz, really. On the one hand you say that morality was different back then and certain things were "acceptable" which aren't now (obviously - who's denying that?), and then on the other hand you concede that this allegation is too serious to fall into that category - so why the preoccupation with it in the first place? It just seems to muddy the water. I don't really know what you mean by "we should be careful about talking in these terms" about the incident. What terms exactly, and why the pains taken to avoid talking about them? The allegation is very clear, and I think most people would agree (despite the apologism sometimes displayed on here) that it goes beyond the regular workplace "high jinx" of the day, in both moral and legal terms - as you have stated yourself. We've all had a bit of "treatment" in our time, a good deal of which would have certainly crossed the legal line. I just don't see what difference that makes to the practicalities of this case - or why we have to "be careful" when we talk about it. I don't have a 'preoccupation' with this allegation mate and I've been very consistent with my opinion that (if proven) those involved should be held to account. I made a SEPERATE (though possibly relevant) point about posters getting too 'hung up' on what we now deem unacceptable behaviour which was, at one time, pretty universally accepted. That's why I used my own experience of 'high jinx' in the workplace, particularly in the old pottery factories where (in all honesty) women got away with murder. In reality, they could have found themselves in very serious trouble if we applied today's viewpoint to what they got up to back then. I made it clear that I wasn't using that to, in any way, justify this particular case but simply stating that I have an issue with applying today's viewpoint to issues that really weren't an issue at the time. The confusion arises because we don't actually know what happened here (hence my urging people to be careful). I have urged people to simply be a bit 'careful' because all we have at the moment is an ALLEGATION and nothing has been proved. If it turns out to be proven true then it is a very serious matter but I'll reserve my judgement on that because I don't know if this actually HAPPENED or if it was a case of the type of workplace high jinx I have been talking about, that has been exaggerated for whatever personal reason an individual might have. At the moment BOTH options are possible but some are talking as if the only possible explaination here is that a very serious crime has been committed. It may well have been but we don't know that yet. That's a very passionate discourse. Are you sure you aren't just a teeny bit preoccupied with this?
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Jul 16, 2015 2:51:14 GMT
I don't have a 'preoccupation' with this allegation mate and I've been very consistent with my opinion that (if proven) those involved should be held to account. I made a SEPERATE (though possibly relevant) point about posters getting too 'hung up' on what we now deem unacceptable behaviour which was, at one time, pretty universally accepted. That's why I used my own experience of 'high jinx' in the workplace, particularly in the old pottery factories where (in all honesty) women got away with murder. In reality, they could have found themselves in very serious trouble if we applied today's viewpoint to what they got up to back then. I made it clear that I wasn't using that to, in any way, justify this particular case but simply stating that I have an issue with applying today's viewpoint to issues that really weren't an issue at the time. The confusion arises because we don't actually know what happened here (hence my urging people to be careful). I have urged people to simply be a bit 'careful' because all we have at the moment is an ALLEGATION and nothing has been proved. If it turns out to be proven true then it is a very serious matter but I'll reserve my judgement on that because I don't know if this actually HAPPENED or if it was a case of the type of workplace high jinx I have been talking about, that has been exaggerated for whatever personal reason an individual might have. At the moment BOTH options are possible but some are talking as if the only possible explaination here is that a very serious crime has been committed. It may well have been but we don't know that yet. That's a very passionate discourse. Are you sure you aren't just a teeny bit preoccupied with this? Not at all mate....I would have stopped after my first post but was asked to explain my stance. I've used too many words in truth to simply tell people to 'hang fire' on executing people. Some seem to be regarding an ACCUSATION as gospel.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jul 16, 2015 2:53:27 GMT
It's not clear to me doz, really. On the one hand you say that morality was different back then and certain things were "acceptable" which aren't now (obviously - who's denying that?), and then on the other hand you concede that this allegation is too serious to fall into that category - so why the preoccupation with it in the first place? It just seems to muddy the water. I don't really know what you mean by "we should be careful about talking in these terms" about the incident. What terms exactly, and why the pains taken to avoid talking about them? The allegation is very clear, and I think most people would agree (despite the apologism sometimes displayed on here) that it goes beyond the regular workplace "high jinx" of the day, in both moral and legal terms - as you have stated yourself. We've all had a bit of "treatment" in our time, a good deal of which would have certainly crossed the legal line. I just don't see what difference that makes to the practicalities of this case - or why we have to "be careful" when we talk about it. I don't have a 'preoccupation' with this allegation mate and I've been very consistent with my opinion that (if proven) those involved should be held to account. I made a SEPERATE (though possibly relevant) point about posters getting too 'hung up' on what we now deem unacceptable behaviour which was, at one time, pretty universally accepted. That's why I used my own experience of 'high jinx' in the workplace, particularly in the old pottery factories where (in all honesty) women got away with murder. In reality, they could have found themselves in very serious trouble if we applied today's viewpoint to what they got up to back then. I made it clear that I wasn't using that to, in any way, justify this particular case but simply stating that I have an issue with applying today's viewpoint to issues that really weren't an issue at the time. The confusion arises because we don't actually know what happened here (hence my urging people to be careful). I have urged people to simply be a bit 'careful' because all we have at the moment is an ALLEGATION and nothing has been proved. If it turns out to be proven true then it is a very serious matter but I'll reserve my judgement on that because I don't know if this actually HAPPENED or if it was a case of the type of workplace high jinx I have been talking about, that has been exaggerated for whatever personal reason an individual might have. At the moment BOTH options are possible but some are talking as if the only possible explaination here is that a very serious crime has been committed. It may well have been but we don't know that yet. Righto mate. Obviously he shouldn't be judged guilty by anyone before the trial is concluded, hopefully that goes without saying. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Jul 16, 2015 3:38:53 GMT
Strange how this victim has waited nearly 30 years to bring the perpetrators to justice don't you think?? Not that it has anything to do with the point, but no, not particularly. It has everything to do with the point. I suspect the Defence council think it is highly relevant...as will most of your average Joe Public.
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Jul 16, 2015 5:30:47 GMT
Not that it has anything to do with the point, but no, not particularly. Staggering naivity If money's the only reason this is in court now, why didn't any of Savile's victims come forward before? There were thousands of them ranging from rape victims to young girls he had a quick feel of, yet none came forward in forty years. Are they all just after a few quid??? Let me make this clear- I'm not equating what Foxy's alleged to have done with the extent of Savile's crimes, but the point is that not all victims of sexual assault (for want of a better way of categorising it) feel empowered enough to come forward at the time for a variety of reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Jul 16, 2015 6:41:37 GMT
If money's the only reason this is in court now, why didn't any of Savile's victims come forward before? There were thousands of them ranging from rape victims to young girls he had a quick feel of, yet none came forward in forty years. Are they all just after a few quid??? Let me make this clear- I'm not equating what Foxy's alleged to have done with the extent of Savile's crimes, but the point is that not all victims of sexual assault (for want of a better way of categorising it) feel empowered enough to come forward at the time for a variety of reasons. Saville's victims did come forward though just as did the girls in Yorkshire but the the police chose to ignore the claims because of who the perpetrators were!
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jul 16, 2015 6:47:25 GMT
If money's the only reason this is in court now, why didn't any of Savile's victims come forward before? There were thousands of them ranging from rape victims to young girls he had a quick feel of, yet none came forward in forty years. Are they all just after a few quid??? Let me make this clear- I'm not equating what Foxy's alleged to have done with the extent of Savile's crimes, but the point is that not all victims of sexual assault (for want of a better way of categorising it) feel empowered enough to come forward at the time for a variety of reasons. Saville's victims did come forward though just as did the girls in Yorkshire but the the police chose to ignore the claims because of who the perpetrators were! Perhaps just perhaps man ( as he now is ) has been traumatised by it and it's all got too much and the current climate has helped him to speak out ....Just because it was the norm ( or was it because I never came across it ) doesn't make it right Why the fuck would another bloke want to stick his finger in a young lads arse ? If people find it acceptable then its concerning
|
|
|
Post by Menorca Stokie on Jul 16, 2015 7:04:11 GMT
We all had the treatment as a youngster,one remembers in my place of work on my first day, Howard mixed up my pot of pens in my desk and swapped lids so i ended up writing in red pen instead of black , i felt like a such a twerp. Mother said in my return from work ' what a silly man' but i can see the funny side now and in a way it made the man one is today. i'd be contacting smith an partners if I was you Waggy, This could be a BIC payout for you, such abuse in the work place. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by dexta on Jul 16, 2015 7:36:14 GMT
Times have changed when you were a youngster back in the 70s 80s....you knew when you were starting a job back then you were going to get banter and a lot of stick....but it was part and parcel back then.times have changed it's no longer acceptable...tbh all the crap I had down the pit frightened the life out of me...but would I kick up a fuss now..would I fuck Imo it just toughens you up for what life throws at you.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 7:53:55 GMT
And let's not conveniently forget that the chap did go to the police a few years back and they found insufficient evidence to make a case.
This is a civil case where the burden of proof is lower, and equally nobody is going to prison on the verdict.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jul 16, 2015 13:53:49 GMT
BBCJohn Washington told Preston Civil Court he heard a radio interview with the player some time between 1986 and 1988.He said: "I can remember Peter saying what he did - 'if any young lad at Stoke gets too big for their boots we put Deep Heat in a sensitive place'.
"I'm sure about the Deep Heat."
He said that following the comment, the reporter at BBC Radio Stoke "moved on quick and changed the subject on to tactics".
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Jul 16, 2015 14:44:34 GMT
Times have changed when you were a youngster back in the 70s 80s....you knew when you were starting a job back then you were going to get banter and a lot of stick....but it was part and parcel back then.times have changed it's no longer acceptable...tbh all the crap I had down the pit frightened the life out of me...but would I kick up a fuss now..would I fuck Imo it just toughens you up for what life throws at you. Lines have to be drawn somewhere though and someone ( society) has to be responsible for drawing them. Everything in the past can't be excusable just as everything shouldn't be punishable. There have been many situations and environments where things have been seemingly acceptable but shouldn't have been so. It was seemingly acceptable to gas Jews in certain societies at certain times in history. It's an extreme example, but it wasn't deemed as extreme in that context by these perpetrators. 'Stick' can range from legal to illegal, acceptable to unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Jul 16, 2015 14:48:26 GMT
BBCJohn Washington told Preston Civil Court he heard a radio interview with the player some time between 1986 and 1988.He said: "I can remember Peter saying what he did - 'if any young lad at Stoke gets too big for their boots we put Deep Heat in a sensitive place'.
"I'm sure about the Deep Heat."
He said that following the comment, the reporter at BBC Radio Stoke "moved on quick and changed the subject on to tactics". John Washington must have one hell of a memory
|
|
|
Post by stayingupfor GermanStokie on Jul 16, 2015 15:10:10 GMT
Jack Robinson Position: Trainee Solicitor
Team: Probate
Office: Celtic House, Derby
Phone: (As per the website)
Oh dear Jack. I think this was a bi of a faux pas on your behalf. I can understand the intention however i think your associates will not be looking too kindly at this. A "slap hand" situation may arise out if this!
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Jul 16, 2015 15:59:42 GMT
And let's not conveniently forget that the chap did go to the police a few years back and they found insufficient evidence to make a case. This is a civil case where the burden of proof is lower, and equally nobody is going to prison on the verdict. A few years back...just after Stoke were back in the top flight. Werrington makes a valid point about why it has taken the bloke 20yrs to make the complaint. Sticking your finger up someone's arse in the workplace goes beyond what most people consider normal banter. Did it happen? Probably. Did it traumatize the bloke to some extent? Probably. To the extent of 170k GBP? I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by Waggy on Jul 16, 2015 16:46:29 GMT
We all had the treatment as a youngster,one remembers in my place of work on my first day, Howard mixed up my pot of pens in my desk and swapped lids so i ended up writing in red pen instead of black , i felt like a such a twerp. Mother said in my return from work ' what a silly man' but i can see the funny side now and in a way it made the man one is today. i'd be contacting smith an partners if I was you Waggy, This could be a BIC payout for you, such abuse in the work place. ;-) Although i felt so humiliated, i do laugh now but at the time i was so embarrassed. Always wanted to get my own back but never have, he retires in December so thinking of swapping the old salt and pepper around in their pots or putting marker pen around the rim of his stetson but as Trevor my good friend says " colin two rights and that"
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jul 16, 2015 16:55:13 GMT
Yes i heard it and he said it was just like any other treatment of apprentices any where else in any industry in the country. Does that make it right mate ? If your 17 year old son came home tonight's and said an older bloke had rammed his finger up his arse you'd be ok with that ? Devils advocate and all that Where does historical banter or abuse of apprentices go to far? To be honest even calling someone names or shouting is still bullying The Country would go bankrupt if ever soldier over the age of 40 claimed for some sort of wrongdoings in training and early years. I remember guys get thrown down stairs in empty metal cupboard etc etc. This will open massive floodgates and doesn't achiee much. Our laws are more robust and the equality and diversity in the work place endures that not much of these practices go on.
|
|
|
Post by Menorca Stokie on Jul 16, 2015 17:00:22 GMT
i'd be contacting smith an partners if I was you Waggy, This could be a BIC payout for you, such abuse in the work place. ;-) Although i felt so humiliated, i do laugh now but at the time i was so embarrassed. Always wanted to get my own back but never have, he retires in December so thinking of swapping the old salt and pepper around in their pots or putting marker pen around the rim of his stetson but as Trevor my good friend says " colin two rights and that" Ooooh, you do sound a one!!!!!!!!! ????
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jul 16, 2015 17:21:41 GMT
Does that make it right mate ? If your 17 year old son came home tonight's and said an older bloke had rammed his finger up his arse you'd be ok with that ? Devils advocate and all that Where does historical banter or abuse of apprentices go to far? To be honest even calling someone names or shouting is still bullying The Country would go bankrupt if ever soldier over the age of 40 claimed for some sort of wrongdoings in training and early years. I remember guys get thrown down stairs in empty metal cupboard etc etc. This will open massive floodgates and doesn't achiee much. Our laws are more robust and the equality and diversity in the work place endures that not much of these practices go on. Minefield mate
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jul 16, 2015 17:27:21 GMT
Where does historical banter or abuse of apprentices go to far? To be honest even calling someone names or shouting is still bullying The Country would go bankrupt if ever soldier over the age of 40 claimed for some sort of wrongdoings in training and early years. I remember guys get thrown down stairs in empty metal cupboard etc etc. This will open massive floodgates and doesn't achiee much. Our laws are more robust and the equality and diversity in the work place endures that not much of these practices go on. Minefield mate If this guy gets £170k I must be worth millions.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jul 16, 2015 17:35:37 GMT
If this guy gets £170k I must be worth millions. Joking aside it must of been traumatic Banter is one thing but to me anything this is well over the line of acceptability and " just a laugh "
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 17:41:34 GMT
How can you put a monetary value on this....and indeed how will compensation mend this blokes mental anguish ? It won't will it
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jul 16, 2015 17:41:36 GMT
If this guy gets £170k I must be worth millions. Joking aside it must of been traumatic Banter is one thing but to me anything this is well over the line of acceptability and " just a laugh " There also needs to be a cut off date line
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Jul 16, 2015 19:31:29 GMT
i'd be contacting smith an partners if I was you Waggy, This could be a BIC payout for you, such abuse in the work place. ;-) Although i felt so humiliated, i do laugh now but at the time i was so embarrassed. Always wanted to get my own back but never have, he retires in December so thinking of swapping the old salt and pepper around in their pots or putting marker pen around the rim of his stetson but as Trevor my good friend says " colin two rights and that" Alright Colin? How was the Costa Del Sol? I expect Trevor put plenty of cream on your back. When I first started work they used to wipe swarfega round the new boys goolies as part of the initiation" I didn't mind the first time ,but by the third occasion I began to the old fucker that did it was a bit suspect. His name was Trevor too strangely.
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Jul 16, 2015 20:23:57 GMT
If any listeners to the radio show “Praise and Grumble” between 1984 and 1988 can remember Mr Peter Fox being interviewed and making any comments regarding the treatment of apprentices at Stoke City Football Club by the professional players, please get in contact with Jack Robinson via email on jack.robinson@smithpartnership.co.uk
Many thanks
For once and for obvious reasons we're ok leaving an email address in a post here.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jul 16, 2015 20:44:52 GMT
If any listeners to the radio show “Praise and Grumble” between 1984 and 1988 can remember Mr Peter Fox being interviewed and making any comments regarding the treatment of apprentices at Stoke City Football Club by the professional players, please get in contact with Jack Robinson via email on jack.robinson@smithpartnership.co.uk
Many thanks
For once and for obvious reasons we're ok leaving an email address in a post here. Really you're ok with this, sal? A man who doesn't state his motives or vested interest using posters of this board as pawns to achieve his potentially ambulance chasing objectives? Wow! If Mr Fox and the club are found guilty I for one hope, Mr Blackstock keeps sufficient amount of his compensation to feel recompensed and the lazy fucking bloodsuckers of the Smith Partnership don't benefit off the labours of this board. I mean how much by the hour will they charge for this tawdry attempt to gather evidence? We should be told as we're all now effectively 'part of the process'.
|
|
|
Post by Sergeant Muttley on Jul 16, 2015 20:57:54 GMT
Having just dealt with Smith partnership of Derby in another family matter i can say i will no longer use their services ever again if parasites like him are employed there.I really cannot believe this case has got as far as it has tbh,traumatised my arse the money grabbing bastard.
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Jul 16, 2015 21:03:00 GMT
What a bizarre thread.
|
|