Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
David





Joined: 06 Sep 2008
Posts: 196
Reputation: 40Reputation: 40Reputation: 40Reputation: 40
votes: 2

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 8:31 pm    Post subject: Is P.M. Harper part of the solution or part of the problem? Reply with quote

Is PM Stephen Harper part of the solution or part of the problem?

Summit costs hit $1.1Billion

The cost of hosting the G8 and G20 summits next month in Ontario now stands at $1.1 billion and further outlays are likely, federal documents show.
The price tag includes $160 million for hospitality, infrastructure, food safety and extra staffing. That amount is in addition to the $933-million security bill the Tories revealed earlier this week.

"This might be the most expensive 72 hours in Canadian history," Liberal MP Mark Holland said.
But Public Safety Minister Vic Toews defended the costs for security, saying Canada has an obligation to make sure world leaders are safe while visiting Toronto and Huntsville, Ont.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff blamed the Conservative government's "poor management" for the ballooning cost estimates.

Ignatieff said Wednesday that Canadians can't understand how the government's initial earmarking of $179 million for security has multiplied in the space of a couple months.

Security costs at previous summits

G8 summit Japan, October 2008: $381 million
G8 summit Gleneagles, Scotland, July 2005: $110 million
G20 summit London, April 2009: $30 million
G20 summit Pittsburgh, September 2009: $18 million US
"These numbers are off the scale with other G8s and G20s," Ignatieff told reporters outside his party's weekly caucus meeting in Ottawa.

"We're three weeks away from the event where Canada will be on the world stage, and I want to be proud of Canada. For now, I'm embarrassed."

Not a cost overrun: Toews
In an interview with CBC News earlier in the day, Toews defended the security estimate as the "most efficient and effective" use of public money for Canada's "unprecedented" hosting of back-to-back international summits. He also insisted the estimate was not a cost overrun.

"This has been budgeted for, and the money is released as it is required," Toews said.

The estimated cost for security over the course of seven days in June dwarfs the amount spent at previous international summits and is expected to surpass the $898 million spent during the Vancouver Olympics — which spanned 14 days.

The official price tag for security at last year's G20 summit in Pittsburgh was listed at $18 million US, according to municipal and U.S. federal officials.

But Toews said comparing the costs for security at this year's summits with the amount spent at the Olympics is like comparing "apples and oranges" because the G8 and G20 meetings, with so many heads of countries visiting at once, require a very "different type" of security.

"Granted there were some heads of nations at the Olympics, but nowhere in the configuration or the numbers that are going to be here," Toews said. "I don't think you can say, 'Well, because it's seven days instead of 14 days, it should be half the price.' It simply doesn't work that way."

The face-to-face meetings, Toews said, allow leaders to deal with issues that simply can't be handled over the phone or by video-conference.

When asked by the Liberals during Wednesday's question period to explain the costs, Toews said the government believes the experts when they say such a level of security is necessary.

"I understand that the Liberals don't believe in securing Canadians or the visitors here," Toews told the House. "We're different."

NDP Leader Jack Layton said the Conservatives have "quadrupled" funding for security, and some of that money could have gone to the government's G8 maternal health initiative. Layton then chastised the Conservatives for refusing to include abortion in its maternal health plan.

"You can do a lot of things with a billion dollars," Layton told the House.

In response, Prime Minister Stephen Harper repeated the government's position that Canadians do not want a debate on this matter.

Single venue would have saved money: Liberals
G8 leaders will gather in Huntsville, Ont., late next month, then join other world leaders for the G20 summit in the heart of downtown Toronto. The security money will be used for planning, accommodation, information technology and working with security partners to protect leaders and their delegations.

The additional $160 million in costs includes about $100 million for office and meeting spaces and pre-summit meetings. Another $1.2 million is to ensure the food served to dignitaries is safe and healthy, while $10 million has been spent on infrastructure and about $50 million has been paid to spruce up the Huntsville area.

Ignatieff ridiculed the Conservatives for switching the G20 meeting venue from Huntsville to Toronto months into the planning stage.

"At first they said Huntsville, then they said, 'Oops, Huntsville is too small and too many flies. Let's high-tail it down to Toronto,'" he said. "This is the confusion we're talking about."

Holland said the government could have reduced security by hosting both summits at a single location, instead of the "logistical nightmare" of two separate venues hundreds of kilometres apart. But Toews said the dates of the summits were actually moved closer together to save money.

Holland said security for the summits is critical, but the government shouldn't be handed a blank cheque.

"We're not talking about cutting corners; we're talking about proper planning," Holland told CBC News on Wednesday. "They tried to force a round peg into a square hole."

Security plans for the G20 meeting in Toronto feature two fenced areas — an outside fence that will close off a large section of the downtown and disrupt access to homes and workplaces, and an inner fence that will control access to hotels and the convention centre.

Later Wednesday, Chris McCluskey, a spokesman for Toews, accused Ignatieff of failing to understand the cost of the summits.

"His comments indicate he has no understanding of the parliamentary budget process, no understanding of the reality of providing security to world leaders, and no understanding of what it takes to have Canada take its rightful place on the world stage," he said in an email.

"The only embarrassment here is Mr. Ignatieff’s ill-informed commentary on an event he should be supporting."

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/sto.....toews.html

(Be sure to read the readers' comments at the end of this article.)
thurmas





Joined: 04 Aug 2009
Posts: 227
Reputation: 36Reputation: 36Reputation: 36Reputation: 36
votes: 1

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sadly this one time i agree with iggy, if pittsburgh last year could do it on $18 mil why does it cost toronto over $1 billion for 3 days? Give that money to the canadian forces they sure as hell could use it more. If the lberals were smart they could really pursue this issue I think canadians are going to be steamed about the outragous cost of this.
infantry67





Joined: 23 Oct 2008
Posts: 192
Reputation: 36.5Reputation: 36.5Reputation: 36.5Reputation: 36.5
Location: Niagara, Ontario

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have these people never heard of webcams???...This is disgusting...another reason to NOT vote for this party next time around....
David





Joined: 06 Sep 2008
Posts: 196
Reputation: 40Reputation: 40Reputation: 40Reputation: 40
votes: 2

PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oxfam head the latest to question government on value of holding G8 and G20 summits in Canada


The Harper government’s decision to spend $930-million on security for two global summits – even as it freezes foreign assistance levels for four years – is a distressing contrast in priorities, the head of a major aid group says.

“It is painful to think a billion dollars is being spent on the security for a three-day event when we are capping commitments to international aid for the next several years because we can’t find the money,” Robert Fox, executive director of Oxfam Canada said.

“It just speaks to our priorities and the fact that when we choose to, we can mobilize resources and when there is a lack of political will, we fall short.”

The Conservative government is on the defensive this week after revealing that the full cost to police and secure two back-to-back world summits in Ontario this June is swelling to nearly $1-billion. The figure appears to far outstrip what other countries have spent protecting similar events, even if calculations account for two meetings instead of one.

The Group of Eight meeting of world leaders starts on June 25 in Huntsville, Ont. It will be shortly followed by a more hastily planned Group of 20 gathering in downtown Toronto, which is about 200 kilometres by road from Huntsville. This second, bigger summit will include discussion of everything from foreign aid to the need for government restraint.

Sensing political opportunity in the surprisingly large security tab, the opposition NDP and Liberals are writing to federal Auditor General Sheila Fraser, asking her to probe the matter.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews declined to provide a breakdown of how the money is being spent, saying on Wednesday it wouldn’t be accurate to divulge figures until the final bill has been tallied.

He acknowledged the huge security bill raises a “good question” about whether big summits are worth the money – adding however that he still supports them.

“Quite frankly, whenever you have a situation where many heads of states gather, the costs are quite simply very expensive, so the question then becomes are these types of meetings necessary,” Mr. Toews said Wednesday.

“I think they are. Because there are certain things that can only be done face to face.”

The security bill represents a significant commitment by Canada, one that in terms of dollars spent is nearly equivalent to one year of fighting the war in Afghanistan. Canada’s direct costs there amount to about $1.1-billion annually.

It’s also about one-fifth of the $4.4-billion the Harper government has set out to save on foreign aid spending by freezing international assistance for four years starting in 2011-12.

Oxfam’s Mr. Fox said he doesn’t want to begrudge security spending but adds the big outlay puts more pressure on world leaders to deliver. He notes that by its own admission, the G8 is $20-billion behind on a five-year-old commitment to Africa. “There had better be real results,” he said. “If not it’s a complete waste.”

The RCMP says spending includes community relations work, leader protection, marine and aviation security, traffic management, intelligence gathering, accreditation screening and verification and logistics for police officers such as accommodation, meals and transportation.

Mr. Toews said that in some cases, the money is being used to buy durable assets that security operations will use during the summits but can be passed on to local police forces later.

“In certain cases, they get the full asset and in other cases ... they have to pay 50 per cent, I think.”

The total $930-million security price tag will surpass the protective and policing bill for the 17-day Winter Olympics in Vancouver.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com.....le1582266/
Forward





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 293
Reputation: 59.2
votes: 2

PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"But Public Safety Minister Vic Toews defended the costs for security, saying Canada has an obligation to make sure world leaders are safe while visiting Toronto and Huntsville, Ont. "


Not to mention dumping a billion on Toronto & Huntsville buys a lot of votes.

Why didn't you have the meetings in Quebec? Those sleazoids are quite used to being bribed with taxpayer's money.[/quote]
chilipepper





Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 380
Reputation: 81.8Reputation: 81.8
votes: 1
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We are not spending any more than other countries do, and somebody has to host it. The question is, are they really necessary and do they achieve enough to justify the cost. Can it be done by video-conferencing?
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 6425
Reputation: 243.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lets keep in mind that the 900 million is the high end estimate depending on how bad things get with protesters.

Its money budgeted, not money spent.


Last edited by cosmostein on Thu May 27, 2010 1:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
IanM





Joined: 28 Jan 2009
Posts: 236
Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3
votes: 6
Location: Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hope everyone's ready for some dulcet tones from me as I justify why it costs 930 million dollars. Its pretty simple to see where it all goes. Actually, really simple. The problem is, well, we're holding it in Toronto. I'm not trying to defend Harper, or hang him, its not really his call. Its a requirement that needs to be filled, and a lot of people are involved, and a lot of analysis is done.

The security required for a summit of this magnitude is well, immense. It also depends on how they all account for it all, and knowing the government, probably poorly.

First off, there is more than likely huge huge manpower costs.

Why?

Simple, its Toronto. Not upper rubber boot. Things aren't going to be in a small compound....

Vital Point security is notoriously expensive. So, what do they need to have fixed security on?

1 - The conference sites themselves.
2 - Any aircraft belonging to other governments.
3 - Any accommodations used.
4 - Depending on how far you want to go, you'll need surge capacity to guard your infrastructure, to guard hospitals, guard command centers. There's a distinct possibility of a terrorist attack, its a high profile event, so therefore you're going to want to go and ensure you have security on likely targets.


All of that ties up people, it ties up vehicles, it ties up equipment. You also need a support infrastructure on that, you need to feed, clothe, house those people, move them too and from places. Any manpower needs to be brought in. With Toronto being what it is, its a huge area, there will be movement all over the place. Which means that on top of any security you have on vital points, you will also need security for the delegates themselves, and their movements. That is later on, however with vital point security, you will have to.

Right now, I can see an estimate of 2-3000 police and military required simply for vital point security of infrastructure. So, Can the Toronto Police provide 2-3000 people for 24/7 operations? Can they provide vehicles? Probably not, so they need to bring people in. More than likely RCMP, Canadian Forces, OPP. All of these people need to be fed, and housed as well as moved to and from Toronto. So how many travel claims need to be filled out? How many hotel rooms, simply to guard facilities.

Not to mention, to maintain that vital point security. You need a command and control infrastructure, you will need to set up voice and data networks, you will have to have people operate and maintain that. You will as well need other people to be watch keepers, operations and intelligence liaisons, hundreds of people to control the whole operation. That equipment doesn't just appear, it needs to be sourced, in some cases purchased, in some cases locally purchased on ye old government credit card. They will need consumables, they also will need to be housed, fed, and well paid.

So, that's only two things, there's so many more.

Now, we need to move people from point A to point B. Great, providing escorts is also manpower intensive. Its also resource intensive. How many thousands of kilometers will vehicles be driven, how much fuel and maintenance costs will there be? Those also need to be moved in, and they will not be cheap. How many police will you need to provide road closures, close escort? Etc etc. You may also need to have standing quick response forces, again, can the Toronto Police provide it, without hampering their day to day operations? Probably not, seeing as with the current love of the G8 / G20, there's going to be lots of people trying to disrupt things.

Now, comes the fun. We had a firebombing, and that raises the threat level. You will have to now maintain a lot of riot police to keep order, to keep the whole situation from going downhill. How many riot police will need to be deployed? Where do they come from? That is going to be complex. You will also more than likely need to actually, as much as I say it, keep military personnel in reserve, as well as more police officers, with the requisite manpower costs. Not to mention, you will need dedicated fire and ambulances, which will of course need to be sourced.....You will need all of that for two reasons, one due to the increased amount of injury and destruction in the area, the possibility of terrorist attacks, as well as dedicated to the conferences themselves, because of the fact that its a tempting target, and those people are vitally important. Even with that, you will need to have recce on the ground, to ensure routes are designated, hospitals are kept at the ready, that any contingency is prepared for.

Not to mention, there is the huge, huge possibility of needing air cover, which I believes costs around 7000 an hour, per aircraft (For fast jets, not sure on helicopters.) I can assume that there will be always air cover over the sites, with more standing by in case, not to mention helicopters for movement and observation..... How much will that cost, that will more than likely come from the Military, and they need to move those aircraft in from Cold Lake / Baggotville, as well as from Trenton and other bases, again, costing money to move and redeploy those people.

Its a huge and complex security operation, and Its expensive as those people need to be on the ground training, there's a huge amount of shaking out that needs to be done. If I recall correctly, people are already training. Couple in specialist assets required, couple in the point of Bomb sweeps, explosive ordinance demolitions personnel, liaison officers, all the people in the background, how many security checks need to be done. It's not a cheap prospect at all. Unfortunately, there's no way around it, simply due to the fact you will have to guard hundreds of people, and dozens of places, be able to respond to contingencies and have the support infrastructure in place.

Who knows how they account for it. Who knows what non consumable extra supplies are charged to the budget. Who knows how may hotel rooms, overtime hours and airfare has been spent. That's not cheap. Assume you have to fly 2000 people in and back, at say 150 each way - That's 600,000 dollars right there, just getting people on the ground. I can see the accommodation and food costs being around 20,000,000, easy, if not higher....Not to mention, it will more than likely cost a lot more due to the fact that I can estimate around 6000 personnel directly and indirectly involved in the effort needing to be in place, across the country. Not to mention, some day to day operations people, who will be working regardless, yet tasked to the conferences may be billed against the conference - That was one big thing with Kevin Page's report on Afghanistan, he also assumed payroll costs that would be there anyways. The government's funny like that you know? Everyone wants more money there.....

Its expensive yes, but its better than the alternative. The only other option is to hold it someplace where its smaller, easier control and has harder access. However, I don't think people want to have a conference in Yellowknife, or Goose Bay....
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 6425
Reputation: 243.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri May 28, 2010 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another one of these damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Lets not forget this thing was originally slated to cost about 160 million,

Then groups like this popped up:
http://g20.torontomobilize.org/
http://news.infoshop.org/artic.....2505523246
http://guerrillaunderground.ni.....oronto-g20

Then this happened:
http://www.ottawasun.com/news/.....88216.html

And of course this was promised by one of the groups:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gt.....cle/810826

What do protesters mean when they promise a ‘militant’ protests to ‘humiliate the security apparatus"?

We have the leaders from 19 countries coming to Toronto, and regardless of if the threat is real or not, these protesters, anarchists, anti-establishment groups and what have you, have made it clear there will be violence.

So what is the response?
Cancel the summit and be dictated to by a vocal minority?
Or be prepared?

Over the last two days I have watch the "tough talking" "fiscal" branch of the party bow down to these groups who have promised violence against the summit, comparing this to the gun registry? Martin's national daycare?

Shock-value at its finest.

We have 10,000+ protesters potentially descending on the city of Toronto, to put that into perspective that is three times larger then the Canadian Forces Presence in Afghanistan.

I won't argue that 900 million budgeted for a worst case scenario is insanely high, but given what has been promised I don't think any of the measures taken are "overkill".

To lay this need for security at the feet of anyone other then those who have promised violence is simply dumbfounding to me.
Luke Nicholson





Joined: 05 Jan 2009
Posts: 207
Reputation: 31.1Reputation: 31.1Reputation: 31.1
Location: Saskatoon, SK.

PostPosted: Fri May 28, 2010 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
Another one of these damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Lets not forget this thing was originally slated to cost about 160 million,

Then groups like this popped up:
http://g20.torontomobilize.org/
http://news.infoshop.org/artic.....2505523246
http://guerrillaunderground.ni.....oronto-g20

Then this happened:
http://www.ottawasun.com/news/.....88216.html

And of course this was promised by one of the groups:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gt.....cle/810826

What do protesters mean when they promise a ‘militant’ protests to ‘humiliate the security apparatus"?

We have the leaders from 19 countries coming to Toronto, and regardless of if the threat is real or not, these protesters, anarchists, anti-establishment groups and what have you, have made it clear there will be violence.

So what is the response?
Cancel the summit and be dictated to by a vocal minority?
Or be prepared?

Over the last two days I have watch the "tough talking" "fiscal" branch of the party bow down to these groups who have promised violence against the summit, comparing this to the gun registry? Martin's national daycare?

Shock-value at its finest.

We have 10,000+ protesters potentially descending on the city of Toronto, to put that into perspective that is three times larger then the Canadian Forces Presence in Afghanistan.

I won't argue that 900 million budgeted for a worst case scenario is insanely high, but given what has been promised I don't think any of the measures taken are "overkill".

To lay this need for security at the feet of anyone other then those who have promised violence is simply dumbfounding to me.


QFT
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2354
Reputation: 161.4Reputation: 161.4
votes: 6

PostPosted: Fri May 28, 2010 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
... What do protesters mean when they promise a ‘militant’ protests to ‘humiliate the security apparatus"?

We have the leaders from 19 countries coming to Toronto, and regardless of if the threat is real or not, these protesters, anarchists, anti-establishment groups and what have you, have made it clear there will be violence.

So what is the response?


I think you make excellent points ... I have watched this thing grow, since Seattle ... seeing it in sociological terms. What impresses me is that the great bulk of the protesters come off university campuses, and represent different utopian ideals, adopted as an all-encompassing life-style. There isn't much politics to it, except this 'Robocop version' of how corporations and government work. The protesters squirm to screw the smooth working machine up. And that's probably it.

The demonstrators probably include extreme environmentalists, including the girl who lived in a tree ... three kinds of vegetarians, various expressions of New Age craftsy groups, Arts groups, big Mr. Potato-Head puppets, etc ... and then, of course, hidden amongst these are the black squad, specialists who, increasingly get training in techniques of resistance, breaching barricades, etc. Who knows?

In Toronto, someone gives courses in 'Collective Resistance', with a fairly high fee -- about $100 for a weekend, or 2 hours on Tuesdays for 4 weeks ... They seem to teach some of this. The class is held at the Steelworker's Hall on Cecil Street.

This element has played a bigger and bigger role in the demonstrations. Most of rthe protest is like a little crafts fair, where they sell each other stuff, and a lot of sexual connections are made. When they black squad comes out, the Puppets, the Vegans and New Agers disperse ... and the situation gets quasi-military very quickly. They have no demands, they have no program. It's just 21st century nihilism. In Seattle, they appeared only at the end of the meetings ... In Quebec City, they tried to breech the fence many times, seemingly at random.

What are the protests about? Is it part of the mating ritual of Youth? Or are there serious issues they're bringing forth by extreme means, because they're blocked in the legitimate' channels? I think I know the answer.
JDot





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 727
Reputation: 63.5
votes: 5
Location: Ontario(GTA)

PostPosted: Fri May 28, 2010 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ward Elcock(The man in charge of the security plan) explains the security cost of the G-8 and G-20 to major D-Bag Tom Clark(Tom Clark is a air head). Ya, the media is torquing the story. Shocking I know, but ya it is obvious..

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/power.....clip307322
JDot





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 727
Reputation: 63.5
votes: 5
Location: Ontario(GTA)

PostPosted: Sat May 29, 2010 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

infantry67 wrote:
Have these people never heard of webcams???...This is disgusting...another reason to NOT vote for this party next time around....


Are you kidding me with the webcams?

Um, we our a G-8/G-20 country, you know that right?

I will help you out to understand what a G-8/G-20 country is, here is a start..

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+a+g8+g20+country

Webcams FOH. I have heard of some alright reasons not to vote CPC next election. But b/c security cost of holding a G-8 and G-20 summit wow, that is a full retard justification..

:roll:

Honestly a reason you are not going to vote for the CPC is b/c of security cost for these 2 summits?

Please explain.... I patiently wait... 8)


Last edited by JDot on Sat May 29, 2010 4:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
Habsrwfan





Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 688
Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Sat May 29, 2010 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I never knew that so many people on this board were complete isolationists who wants Canada to effectively shut down foreign diplomacy.

The complaints that some posters on this site are trying to make over the G8/G20 summit are a pile of crap.

Canada is not an island unto itself. Meetings like this are a necessary part of being a prominent nation in the world today. Seriously people. :roll:
JDot





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 727
Reputation: 63.5
votes: 5
Location: Ontario(GTA)

PostPosted: Sat May 29, 2010 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Habsrwfan wrote:
I never knew that so many people on this board were complete isolationists who wants Canada to effectively shut down foreign diplomacy.

The complaints that some posters on this site are trying to make over the G8/G20 summit are a pile of crap.

Canada is not an island unto itself. Meetings like this are a necessary part of being a prominent nation in the world today. Seriously people. :roll:


Co-sign..

I am at a lost for words over this issue. We are either a prominent nation or we are not. It looks like some people think the latter...
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  


 
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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Is P.M. Harper part of the solution or part of the problem?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB