You are logged in as a guest. 
  Home Forums Home  Search our Forums Search our Forums    Log in to the Forums Log in to the Forums  register Register on the Forums  

 Forums ->  General Chat -> Chatterbox
Format:  Go
Grenfell Tower
AuthorMessage
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 28 January 2020 6:22 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


50005000500020001000
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


Bulletguy - 2020-01-28 4:13 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-01-27 5:40 PM

That is broadly what I would expect at this stage. No-one is going to concede liability in the public enquiry when there are likely to be criminal proceedings over who was actually responsible for what. To do so would be to put their own head in the noose.

It ain't gonna be quick! In fact, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if, due to the danger of participants incriminating themselves, they are advised on legal grounds to say nothing more, and the enquiry has to be suspended while the various individual cases are tried to determine legal liability.

I realise this Brian and if Hillsborough is anything to go by, it will take years to settle and worse still those at fault walking away scot free. People have to be held to account. When they take these jobs on, often very highly rewarded, they must also realise a high level of responsibility comes with the job too? When something goes belly up you shouldn't expect to get away with playing the blame game looking for some lower down to throw under the bus. There's too much of this going on and Hillsborough was a prime example.

It will be interesting to see what the inquiry findings turn up with the RBKC. Also KCTMO as the landlord. Emails have now emerged showing how it was well known the cladding would fail in event of a fire and Celotex said its insulation was sold as combustible and its use was down to “a myriad of failings on behalf of the designers, contractors, consultants and building control inspectors”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/28/grenfell-tower-refurbishers-knew-cladding-would-fail-inquiry-told

Under the Health and Safety at Work Act, clients can be responsible for work they commission. Their defence is to have selected their consultants and contractors with due diligence. I don't know what role KCTMO had in selecting and appointing the various consultancies and contractors, but from what I have read, I don't think they were adequately equipped to run the project without expert assistance. That would seem to me to put RBKC in the firing line for having, in effect, placed control of the project in the hands if a "man of straw".

Those involved are generally well aware of their responsibilities - if for no other reason that they have to hold Professional Indemnity Insurance to the value (usually) of the work they undertake. However, the insurance does not limit their liability at law. PII used to be unlimited, but the premiums became so costly, as projects became more costly, that the specialist professionals involved changed from partnerships to limited liability companies because no-one could afford them. Clients now generally demand the full value of the works be covered but have to accept that in the worst cases they are unlikely to be able to recover the full value of their losses.

What has to be decided is where the buck stops. The insights into the levels of knowledge regarding the cladding and the insulation, on the part of those involved, are interesting. Clearly several of the consultancies were uneasy but, given their obvious discomfort, someone must have been over-riding their concerns - either by refusing to review the cladding/insulation mix, or by providing convincing assurances that the mix was "safe". The buck will stop with whoever overrode the unease, or gave the false assurances.

The bill for restitution, damages, and compensation is going to be absolutely astronomic. The main battle, I suspect, will be between the (I assume various) insurance companies, and how much of the differing liabilities they each agree (or are forced) to take on. Once the verdicts begin to be given I suspect several of those involved will fold, as they are unlikely to get further work with a Grenfell liability to live down.

It still seems at least possible that the various relaxations in the regulations, and those charged with enforcing them, will be found to have created such confusion that those involved did think what they were doing was what was permitted - even if they didn't much like it. Their only alternative course of action would have been to resign from the project team, saying why, and take the financial consequences for so doing. Reliance on such acts of self-sacrifice would hardly be a sound policy for ensuring building safety. That, in essence is why the regulations exist, and is why the power for approval of building projects should be vested in independent authorities with no financial interest whatever in the outcome. That used to be the case, and it is no longer so. To quote Dave Pelmet, progress, eh?
usercolin
Posted: 29 January 2020 4:11 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


Legendary contributor

Posts: 8171
5000200010001002525
Location: Bedfordshire, Globecar 636SB


https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-fire-grenfell/witnesses-seek-protection-from-charges-over-londons-deadly-grenfell-fire-idUKKBN1ZS1TU
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 29 January 2020 5:45 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


50005000500020001000
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street



That report gives me the impression that these individuals may be potential whistle blowers who are seeking protection from prosecution by their employers/ex employers if they tell what they know. Interesting.
userBulletguy
Posted: 29 January 2020 6:10 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13719
5000500020001000500100100
Location: Cheshire


Brian Kirby - 2020-01-29 5:45 PM


That report gives me the impression that these individuals may be potential whistle blowers who are seeking protection from prosecution by their employers/ex employers if they tell what they know. Interesting.

Indeed they could well be, particularly the 'ex-employees' bit, and i'm not sure how comfortable that would sit with any of the survivors. The possible charges of gross negligence manslaughter and corporate manslaughter are extremely serious.
userBulletguy
Posted: 29 January 2020 10:46 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13719
5000500020001000500100100
Location: Cheshire



Michael Mansfield QC for the survivors and families slammed the timing of the application for protection from incrimination as "highly reprehensible and highly questionable";

https://www.channel4.com/news/grenfell-inquiry-companies-request-protection-against-self-incrimination
usercolin
Posted: 30 January 2020 9:48 AM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


Legendary contributor

Posts: 8171
5000200010001002525
Location: Bedfordshire, Globecar 636SB


Brian Kirby - 2020-01-29 5:45 PM


That report gives me the impression that these individuals may be potential whistle blowers who are seeking protection from prosecution by their employers/ex employers if they tell what they know. Interesting.


Any past employer trying to take out a private prosecution for someone telling the truth at an enquiry is not likely to happen, if they where worried it would be more about future employment prospects or criminal charges.
userBulletguy
Posted: 30 January 2020 3:19 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13719
5000500020001000500100100
Location: Cheshire


colin - 2020-01-30 9:48 AM

Brian Kirby - 2020-01-29 5:45 PM


That report gives me the impression that these individuals may be potential whistle blowers who are seeking protection from prosecution by their employers/ex employers if they tell what they know. Interesting.


Any past employer trying to take out a private prosecution for someone telling the truth at an enquiry is not likely to happen, if they where worried it would be more about future employment prospects or criminal charges.

Possibly right Colin but even so it doesn't put any individuals in a very good light does it? Any employee knowingly ignoring something purely for the sake of their job makes them complicit in any potential illegal activity. If they have withheld vital information it needs to be looked at very closely.
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 30 January 2020 7:13 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


50005000500020001000
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


Bulletguy - 2020-01-30 3:19 PM

colin - 2020-01-30 9:48 AM

Brian Kirby - 2020-01-29 5:45 PM


That report gives me the impression that these individuals may be potential whistle blowers who are seeking protection from prosecution by their employers/ex employers if they tell what they know. Interesting.


Any past employer trying to take out a private prosecution for someone telling the truth at an enquiry is not likely to happen, if they where worried it would be more about future employment prospects or criminal charges.

Possibly right Colin but even so it doesn't put any individuals in a very good light does it? Any employee knowingly ignoring something purely for the sake of their job makes them complicit in any potential illegal activity. If they have withheld vital information it needs to be looked at very closely.

It's interesting, as the Reuter's report refers to those seeking immunity from prosecution as being employees and ex-employees, whereas other reports refer to companies seeking immunity.

"Employees" come in many shapes and sizes, so it seems possible that those actually installing the cladding/insulation to the façade, or similar, may have questioned whether what was being used was the "right stuff", and may have been told that it was, or that it was not their place to question the basis of the design. There are relatively few people employed on construction projects who would be in a position to question the legality of materials being installed under an authorised contract - especially one let by a London Borough which should be assumed competent to fully understand the implications of what they were buying. We'll just have to wait to see what emerges. The more questions you ask, the more responsibility you assume, and not everyone volunteers to "know too much"! But, they may now want their two penn'orth!
userBulletguy
Posted: 30 January 2020 8:34 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13719
5000500020001000500100100
Location: Cheshire


Brian Kirby - 2020-01-30 7:13 PM

Bulletguy - 2020-01-30 3:19 PM

colin - 2020-01-30 9:48 AM

Brian Kirby - 2020-01-29 5:45 PM


That report gives me the impression that these individuals may be potential whistle blowers who are seeking protection from prosecution by their employers/ex employers if they tell what they know. Interesting.


Any past employer trying to take out a private prosecution for someone telling the truth at an enquiry is not likely to happen, if they where worried it would be more about future employment prospects or criminal charges.

Possibly right Colin but even so it doesn't put any individuals in a very good light does it? Any employee knowingly ignoring something purely for the sake of their job makes them complicit in any potential illegal activity. If they have withheld vital information it needs to be looked at very closely.

It's interesting, as the Reuter's report refers to those seeking immunity from prosecution as being employees and ex-employees, whereas other reports refer to companies seeking immunity.

"Employees" come in many shapes and sizes, so it seems possible that those actually installing the cladding/insulation to the façade, or similar, may have questioned whether what was being used was the "right stuff", and may have been told that it was, or that it was not their place to question the basis of the design. There are relatively few people employed on construction projects who would be in a position to question the legality of materials being installed under an authorised contract - especially one let by a London Borough which should be assumed competent to fully understand the implications of what they were buying. We'll just have to wait to see what emerges. The more questions you ask, the more responsibility you assume, and not everyone volunteers to "know too much"! But, they may now want their two penn'orth!

Bit in bold wouldn't surprise me at all.....particularly that 'it was not their place to question'. People that do are seen as 'troublemakers', last in line for overtime, moved to work sections nobody likes, or given a bad time in the hope they will leave of their own accord.
userBulletguy
Posted: 12 February 2020 4:27 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13719
5000500020001000500100100
Location: Cheshire



Possible fraud charges over tower refit

Grenfell contractors and those involved in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower are facing possible charges of fraud and conspiracy to defraud, new reports have suggested.

Inquiry chair Sir Martin Moore-Bick has told Attorney General Geoffrey Cox, that during upcoming hearings, witnesses are “very likely” to be asked to discuss issues involving potential fraud offences.

The inquiry has already heard witnesses could face criminal prosecution, and in some cases could be charged with manslaughter or corporate manslaughter.


These are very serious charges which if found proven will result in custodial sentences. I expect much more to come from this phase.

https://www.24housing.co.uk/news/grenfell-inquiry-suggests-possible-fraud-charges-over-tower-refit/
userBulletguy
Posted: 7 March 2020 6:08 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13719
5000500020001000500100100
Location: Cheshire


Phase two still ongoing;

Who owned the fire risk?

Central to the search for answers is the question: "Who should have 'owned the risk' when it came to fire safety?"

This week's evidence strongly suggested that the architects for the refurbishment of this ageing London tower block did not see ensuring it met fire safety regulations as something they needed to get closely involved with.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51754282

Good to see this pair get their comeuppance though quite why the six month difference in sentence is beyond me as both were complicit together in the same crime.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/grenfell-tower-fraud-50000-scam-a4379866.html
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 7 March 2020 6:46 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


50005000500020001000
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


Bulletguy - 2020-03-07 6:08 PM

Phase two still ongoing;

Who owned the fire risk?

Central to the search for answers is the question: "Who should have 'owned the risk' when it came to fire safety?"

This week's evidence strongly suggested that the architects for the refurbishment of this ageing London tower block did not see ensuring it met fire safety regulations as something they needed to get closely involved with.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51754282………………………………...

What staggers me is that no-one yet seems to have asked who was responsible for approving the proposed work under the Building Regulations. Before work can legally commence, formal approval is required. No competent building contractor will/would commence work on a project until they were satisfied that either all relevant approvals had been obtained, or that no approval is required by the relevant authority. It is incomprehensible that RBKC building control officers visited the site on numerous occasions, but appear not to have raised the question of the suitability of the materials that they saw being used. After all, Building Regulations compliance is their bread and butter.

I know I've quoted this before, but BR B Fire states

"External Fire Spread

B4. (1) The external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building."

That has nothing to do with limited combustibility. That is the actual regulation: it is a performance standard.

The external walls did not adequately resist the spread of fire, and the approval procedure was there to ensure that, whatever the shortcomings on the part of the designers, they should. They are the ultimate safety longstop.

The approval is the obvious place to start, and the fact that no-one has yet quoted what it said or who gave it is beginning to suggest to me that no-one actually sought approval. That, on a local authority owned building, with that authority's building control personnel frequently on site during construction, is truly incredible.
userBulletguy
Posted: 7 March 2020 7:57 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13719
5000500020001000500100100
Location: Cheshire


Brian Kirby - 2020-03-07 6:46 PM

Bulletguy - 2020-03-07 6:08 PM

Phase two still ongoing;

Who owned the fire risk?

Central to the search for answers is the question: "Who should have 'owned the risk' when it came to fire safety?"

This week's evidence strongly suggested that the architects for the refurbishment of this ageing London tower block did not see ensuring it met fire safety regulations as something they needed to get closely involved with.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51754282………………………………...

What staggers me is that no-one yet seems to have asked who was responsible for approving the proposed work under the Building Regulations. Before work can legally commence, formal approval is required. No competent building contractor will/would commence work on a project until they were satisfied that either all relevant approvals had been obtained, or that no approval is required by the relevant authority. It is incomprehensible that RBKC building control officers visited the site on numerous occasions, but appear not to have raised the question of the suitability of the materials that they saw being used. After all, Building Regulations compliance is their bread and butter.

Apparently it was building control officers from RBKC responsible for the approval and the council admitted it.......along with an 'apology'.

https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/building-control-approved-grenfell-without-seeing-full-plans/5104042.article
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 8 March 2020 12:07 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


50005000500020001000
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


Sort of, Paul, but all they are really acknowledging (though bad enough in itself) is that they signed a completion certificate for works that they had never originally approved.

This was a major refurbishment in the course of which the whole fire safety profile of the building was radically altered. That alteration absolutely required formal approval under Building Regulations, which could only be given following a detailed examination of the detailed drawings and specifications. That approval can only be granted by a "Building Control Body", and it is becoming increasing clear that no such body was involved.

I have no idea what the true competencies of those variously involved were, but it seems most would have failed an audition for Mickey Mouse! It is simply unbelievable that so many can have known so little of what their legal obligations were.
userthebishbus
Posted: 8 March 2020 1:18 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


Epic contributor

Posts: 1154
10001002525
Location: Warwickshire 01 Hymer 584


Not only Grenfell Tower though, look at all the other buildings with similar construction problems. Did they all suffer from planning deficiencies I wonder ?
Brian B.

Edited by thebishbus 2020-03-08 1:23 PM
userBulletguy
Posted: 8 March 2020 5:11 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13719
5000500020001000500100100
Location: Cheshire


Brian Kirby - 2020-03-08 12:07 PM

Sort of, Paul, but all they are really acknowledging (though bad enough in itself) is that they signed a completion certificate for works that they had never originally approved.

This was a major refurbishment in the course of which the whole fire safety profile of the building was radically altered. That alteration absolutely required formal approval under Building Regulations, which could only be given following a detailed examination of the detailed drawings and specifications. That approval can only be granted by a "Building Control Body", and it is becoming increasing clear that no such body was involved.

I have no idea what the true competencies of those variously involved were, but it seems most would have failed an audition for Mickey Mouse! It is simply unbelievable that so many can have known so little of what their legal obligations were.

Sloppy to say the least if not illegal? Surely there has to be accountability here?

Not quite the same or as serious but i remember years ago having to call out a drain service to clear a blocked rain which was shared by my neighbour. The guy who did the job (successfully) told me he had started out by laying drains on new build estates. Each drain leading to the main drain is required to have a certain degree of 'fall' so the water drains away properly (makes sense) and these are supposed to be inspected before being covered, yet he lost count of the times inspectors either never turned up or developers were pressuring site workers to continue irrespective.

Like Grenfell it's only a matter of time before the lax attitude has consequences.....only of course in the case of Grenfell it killed 72 people which could have been avoidable.
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 9 March 2020 6:32 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


50005000500020001000
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


thebishbus - 2020-03-08 1:18 PM

Not only Grenfell Tower though, look at all the other buildings with similar construction problems. Did they all suffer from planning deficiencies I wonder ?
Brian B.

Not planning, Brian, but Building Regulations.

Over a number of years, successive governments have issued a number of relaxations to the Regulations in pursuit of "light touch" regulation, self certification, and have also effectively privatised approvals.

I think what Grenfell represents is the law of unintended consequence. It seems clear that, in their present form, the Regulations create a number of "bear traps" for those with limited experience. In response to a query I put to an experienced Fire Officer many years ago he replied "first read the regulation, then decide what it is saying".

I've replicated the relevant regulation above, and would invite anyone to consider whether a reasonable interpretation of what it is saying could allow the installation of flammable cladding and flammable insulation over the entirety of the exterior of a large block of flats. Yet, that is what was done at Grenfell and at hundreds of other similar blocks.

I think someone came up with a "clever wheeze" to get around the obvious (to me) meaning of that regulation as being that the cladding and insulation should be incombustible. Why? Because by "allowing" cheaper, flammable, materials to be used, the cost of over-cladding older, poorly insulated, blocks, those involved were able to show considerable cost savings.

I assume that once the "wheeze" had been authorised in one location, and the project awarded to the wheezers, a cost threshold for such project was established, and the others either followed suite, or lost the job.

Which takes back to the beginning - that it is to prevent such "clever wheezes" that the regulations came into existence - in the interests of public safety and health. The wheeze has obviously been running for years, and it took the horror of Grenfell to expose its lethality. The light touch brigade never learn, and seldom suffer the consequences of their short-sightedness. Overall, they cost us all far more than the relaxations they facilitate have gained us.
userBulletguy
Posted: 9 March 2020 10:00 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13719
5000500020001000500100100
Location: Cheshire


Todays latest from the inquiry.

"insulation manufacturer ‘calculatedly sought to deceive’ with marketing material"

https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/grenfell-inquiry-celotex-fire-safety-claims-likened-to-horsemeat-scandal/5104786.article
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 10 March 2020 12:24 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


50005000500020001000
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


The relevant part of the "Celotex Rainscreen Cladding Compliance Guide when specifying Celotex RS5000 in buildings above 18 metres", reads as follows:

"Celotex RS5000

Celotex RS5000 is a premium performance solution and is the first PIR board to successfully test to BS 8414-2:2005 for rainscreen cladding systems meeting the performance criteria set out in BR 135.
The system tested was as follows:

? 12mm Fibre Cement Panels
? Supporting aluminium brackets and vertical rails
? 100mm Celotex RS5000
? 12mm Non-combustible sheathing board
? 100mm SFS System
? 2 x 12.5mm plasterboard

Fire stopping was provided by ventilated horizontal fire breaks positioned at each floor slab edge and above the hearth opening. Vertical non-ventilated fire breaks were provided at the edges of both the
main face and the return wing and around the hearth opening.

The fire performance and classification report issued only relates to the components detailed and constructed in figure 4. Any changes to the components listed and construction method set out in figure 4 will need to be considered by the building designer." (My bold)

What that last paragraph above means is that any other design of cladding system that does not exactly mirror the system as tested by Celotex needs to be tested to prove its compliance before it can be approved.

I note that Neil Crawford is stated not to be a part III-qualified architect. Not sure quite what they are saying about his level of qualification, but unless someone studying architecture has passed his part three examination (often referred to as the "Professional Practice examination) they are liable to be sued for misrepresentation if they describe themselves as an architect - because until that exam is passed they are not eligible to register with the Architects Registration Board (ARB - the board responsible for ensuring that anyone in UK who describes themselves as an architect is properly qualified to practice in accordance with the Architects Act 1997). Yet, it seems he was made responsible as project manager.

But, it seems no-one interviewed so far has commented on the absence of a formal approval for the form of cladding used. Astounding!
userBulletguy
Posted: 10 March 2020 4:08 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13719
5000500020001000500100100
Location: Cheshire


Brian Kirby - 2020-03-10 12:24 PM

I note that Neil Crawford is stated not to be a part III-qualified architect. Not sure quite what they are saying about his level of qualification, but unless someone studying architecture has passed his part three examination (often referred to as the "Professional Practice examination) they are liable to be sued for misrepresentation if they describe themselves as an architect - because until that exam is passed they are not eligible to register with the Architects Registration Board (ARB - the board responsible for ensuring that anyone in UK who describes themselves as an architect is properly qualified to practice in accordance with the Architects Act 1997). Yet, it seems he was made responsible as project manager.

But, it seems no-one interviewed so far has commented on the absence of a formal approval for the form of cladding used. Astounding!

Yes that seemed odd to me and i'm not versed in building regs etc. How can a non-qualified person end up as project manager? He's described in other media articles as a "designer" which is a bit vague. Whilst i realise unqualified private individuals can designate themselves as a project manager when overseeing an extension or whatever to their own property, a multiple occupancy tower block is quite another matter altogether.

The cladding is rated as flammable and banned in Germany and US on buildings over 40ft yet according to this article, fire resistant cladding would have cost just £5000 more. Surely someone must have known they were building a time bomb?

https://metro.co.uk/2017/06/16/why-is-cladding-banned-in-the-us-and-germany-used-on-buildings-in-the-uk-6712578/
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 10 March 2020 4:38 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


50005000500020001000
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


Bulletguy - 2020-03-10 4:08 PM …………………………….
The cladding is rated as flammable and banned in Germany and US on buildings over 40ft yet according to this article, fire resistant cladding would have cost just £5000 more. Surely someone must have known they were building a time bomb?

https://metro.co.uk/2017/06/16/why-is-cladding-banned-in-the-us-and-germany-used-on-buildings-in-the-uk-6712578/

The article is from 2017, and I'm hoping that the enquiry will expose why it was thought possible to use it in UK despite its flammability.

We don't usually ban materials outright. What we do is write performance requirements, and the suggest a number of ways in which they can be met using tried and tested methods and materials, and then allow those who want to try a different approach to prove that it meets the requirement.

So, IMO, under the Regs (and as suggested by the Celotex document I quoted above) the proposed combination of cladding and insulation should have been tested at the Building Research Establishment, in just the same way that all those other versions of cladding plus insulation were just after the Grenfell fire.

Of course, passing those tests should have been a condition of approval but (see where I'm going !) someone seems to have decided that no approval was required.

So, we apparently end up with a building built under Section 20 of the London Building Acts, under the oversight of a London District Surveyor, apparently being modified by designers and contractors who think that all they have to do is choose what they like and think they can afford, and just go ahead without obtaining any approvals at all while the RBKC Building Control Department watch them closely while they do so, and then sign off the job as satisfactorily completed! "Amateur night" is just sooooooooo horribly inadequate!
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread
Jump to forum :


(Delete all cookies set by this site)(Return to Homepage)

Any problems? Contact the administrator