Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
20 Mar 25
23:34
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Jan 02
For ......
failing to identify a consumer who staked £23,674 in a 13-day period as someone who may be at risk of or experiencing harms associated with gambling
failing to adequately interact with a consumer during a four-hour session in which they placed 56 bets and lost £3,523
failing to adequately interact with a consumer who staked £47,416 and lost £6,741 over a 10-week period.
customers were able to stake and lose significant sums without the Licensee being in receipt of sufficient Know Your Customer evidence or being able to otherwise verify the source or legitimacy of funds, due to the high financial thresholds in place. In one case, a customer was able to stake approximately £47,000 and lose £14,000 during an 8-month period without the Licensee verifying the legitimacy of the monies accepted from the customer
failing to identify a consumer who staked £23,674 in a 13-day period as someone who may be at risk of or experiencing harms associated with gambling
failing to adequately interact with a consumer during a four-hour session in which they placed 56 bets and lost £3,523
failing to adequately interact with a consumer who staked £47,416 and lost £6,741 over a 10-week period.
customers were able to stake and lose significant sums without the Licensee being in receipt of sufficient Know Your Customer evidence or being able to otherwise verify the source or legitimacy of funds, due to the high financial thresholds in place. In one case, a customer was able to stake approximately £47,000 and lose £14,000 during an 8-month period without the Licensee verifying the legitimacy of the monies accepted from the customer
Show More
The GC fines bookmakers who then have to ask punters for passports, bank statements and so on before they can have a bet (or after they have a bet but before they can draw their winnings).
And the Racing Post (and Betfair forums) fill with tales of woe from people indignant at being asked. Bookmakers should take it on trust... but they can't because if they do, it is back to paragraph one.
Only a cynic would suggest bookies also use this as cover to exclude punters with a clue.
And the Racing Post (and Betfair forums) fill with tales of woe from people indignant at being asked. Bookmakers should take it on trust... but they can't because if they do, it is back to paragraph one.
Only a cynic would suggest bookies also use this as cover to exclude punters with a clue.
The GC hold the bookmakers by the goolies with respect to betting.
Anyone betting decent stakes should now realise it is the bookmakers, scared of these huge fines, who have to take action, i.e request ID and source of funds, otherwise they face penalties far greater that what a punter spends and loses.
FFS just do it, or leave the game.
Anyone betting decent stakes should now realise it is the bookmakers, scared of these huge fines, who have to take action, i.e request ID and source of funds, otherwise they face penalties far greater that what a punter spends and loses.
FFS just do it, or leave the game.
Sorry, but I disagree.
If that was the case, how do you explain the mp who was down something like £5 over a 6 month period but they wanted his inside leg measurement, eye colour, show size etc etc ?
Referring to the first paragraph as you suggest, a person staking 23k over a 13 day period , is staking 2k/ day so a high staking punter. They are not someone placing small bets, so are more than just a recreational punter and worth assessing / asking relevant questions to.
They are not a £50 punter who is being knocked back and reduced to staking pennies that the bookies have been targeting for source of funds issue.
If that was the case, how do you explain the mp who was down something like £5 over a 6 month period but they wanted his inside leg measurement, eye colour, show size etc etc ?
Referring to the first paragraph as you suggest, a person staking 23k over a 13 day period , is staking 2k/ day so a high staking punter. They are not someone placing small bets, so are more than just a recreational punter and worth assessing / asking relevant questions to.
They are not a £50 punter who is being knocked back and reduced to staking pennies that the bookies have been targeting for source of funds issue.
Meanwhile social workers all young children to be brutally treated due to incompetence just say lessons will be learned and then crack on with there job
York Council’s public health director Peter Roderick “Around one or two per cent of the population have gambling issues, so statistically there will be stories of children in York who’ve seen daddy come home saying he’s lost £150,000. Gambling premises will be required to check customers’ ages if they appear to be under 25 from August under new rules.
Ok to get married though
Ok to get married though
Is this push against betting an international issue or just a UK problem ?
Wondering whether they have the same issues across Europe and what is happening in countries like France, Spain etc ?
Wondering whether they have the same issues across Europe and what is happening in countries like France, Spain etc ?
@howard
"Gambling premises will be required to check customers’ ages if they appear to be under 25 from August under new rules.
Ok to get married though"
I am moderately certain you are age-checked to be over 18 before getting married?
"Gambling premises will be required to check customers’ ages if they appear to be under 25 from August under new rules.
Ok to get married though"
I am moderately certain you are age-checked to be over 18 before getting married?
Mar 21, 2025 -- 8:38AM, oneten wrote:
Sorry, but I disagree. If that was the case, how do you explain the mp who was down something like £5 over a 6 month period but they wanted his inside leg measurement, eye colour, show size etc etc ? Referring to the first paragraph as you suggest, a person staking 23k over a 13 day period , is staking 2k/ day so a high staking punter. They are not someone placing small bets, so are more than just a recreational punter and worth assessing / asking relevant questions to. They are not a £50
oneten • March 21, 2025 7:38 AM GMT
Sorry, but I disagree.
If that was the case, how do you explain the mp who was down something like £5 over a 6 month period but they wanted his inside leg measurement, eye colour, show size etc etc ?
You don't know if this guy lost £1 per month, or won £50k in month 1, and lost it all in month 6.
Sorry, but I disagree.
If that was the case, how do you explain the mp who was down something like £5 over a 6 month period but they wanted his inside leg measurement, eye colour, show size etc etc ?
You don't know if this guy lost £1 per month, or won £50k in month 1, and lost it all in month 6.
Jamie, I have just reread the news article and you are right we don't know if he won 50k and then lost it all, but he was the MP for Cheltenham and said he had lost about 30 quid over 3 months.
So on the balance of probability as he went to the press with this story and the fact he was an MP who had he racked up a load of losses would want to keep it out of the gossip columns , we can assume with a high level of probability that he's just a regular £10 / £20 punter, otherwise the stories would come out and jeopardise his longstanding political career.
So on the balance of probability as he went to the press with this story and the fact he was an MP who had he racked up a load of losses would want to keep it out of the gossip columns , we can assume with a high level of probability that he's just a regular £10 / £20 punter, otherwise the stories would come out and jeopardise his longstanding political career.
I could blow £25k on a cruise for me and the mrs and no one would bat an eye lid.
Where is the sense in all this or is it just a moral crusade?
Where is the sense in all this or is it just a moral crusade?
you see, people do mental things and need to be protected, why would you book any holiday let alone a cruise with the mrs?
Elise, barstool, very funny
On a similar vein , anyone can gamble 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100k on shares in dodgy Aim companies and no questions asked.
The only difference is the social element - putting money into the stock market is seen as intelligent investing.
Putting money on a horse is seen as gambling and looked down upon as the pursuit of an addict or a socially irresponsible person.
.
On a similar vein , anyone can gamble 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100k on shares in dodgy Aim companies and no questions asked.
The only difference is the social element - putting money into the stock market is seen as intelligent investing.
Putting money on a horse is seen as gambling and looked down upon as the pursuit of an addict or a socially irresponsible person.
.
Should really be called The "Anti" Gambling Commission. Has there ever been a fine so completely out of proprtion to the "crime"?
CB29 - I'd imagine the 3 or 4 instances listed are just "samples".
Given the likelihood that their on-line processes are automated or driven/triggered by an algorithm, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume that they just haven't bothered to comply with any aspect of the Gambling Act - KYC, affordability, source of funds, money laundering, etc, etc.
Given the likelihood that their on-line processes are automated or driven/triggered by an algorithm, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume that they just haven't bothered to comply with any aspect of the Gambling Act - KYC, affordability, source of funds, money laundering, etc, etc.
Probably also fair to assume that if they are recently ignoring the Gambling Act - they have probably also been ignoring it for the past 20+ years!
There used to be an employee of the Gambling Commission who posted on this forum. It was only suspected when the poster showed they in fact knew nothing about betting nor the job they were supposed to be doing. I don't know from where the original Birmingham office culled their staff but suspect the posts were initially open only to civil servants - correct me if I am wrong.
Wonder how the amnount of the fine was arrived at? £686,070 is a pretty odd figure.
What amuses with all this is what the GC would have done to the bookies who took Terry Ramsden for millions? He bet so much but was worth £150 million at one point, mostly derived from bond dealings in Japan. GC would have steered clear of that, I'd bet.
But someone has hot the nail on the head on this set of posts. The GC are pushing a moral crusade here!!!
What amuses with all this is what the GC would have done to the bookies who took Terry Ramsden for millions? He bet so much but was worth £150 million at one point, mostly derived from bond dealings in Japan. GC would have steered clear of that, I'd bet.
But someone has hot the nail on the head on this set of posts. The GC are pushing a moral crusade here!!!
The Gambling Commission is staffed by people who think gambling is bad.
I think it's probably more accurate to say it was staffed by people that weren't enforcing the 2004/05 Gambling Act.
And now it is staffed by people that are enforcing the Act - although it's probably fair to say they are under pressure to compensate for all the previous failures to do so - and perhaps to over compensate.
And now it is staffed by people that are enforcing the Act - although it's probably fair to say they are under pressure to compensate for all the previous failures to do so - and perhaps to over compensate.
TM They must be the worst cases. When businesses or public bodies put out statements to justify actions they always paint them in the worst/best possible light. They'll be strictly true but very often misleading.
What we have hear is the four worst instances over an unidentified timeframe and the total loss combined of all four is £24,624. That's not enough to train one racehorse for one year
What we have hear is the four worst instances over an unidentified timeframe and the total loss combined of all four is £24,624. That's not enough to train one racehorse for one year
If I go to Michael Stoute and ask him to train my horse at over £3k a month, is he going to ask me to go through KYC checks to ascertain the source of my funds? Or does that responsibility lie with the bank?
Apart from the fact he is retired, like the TOTE is no longer owned by Betfred do you actually have a clue Clydebank?
I'm not a horse racing punter Cagliari. Haven't been for 20 years. Your point is irrelevant AGAIN
Irrelevant in terms of you making statements so far out of date that they are exempt from questions when they are posted on here?
Don't be a troll. I know that you know it's not relevant.
In case it escaped your notice like SMS and the TOTE, this Forum is Horse Racing and Gambling related despite the carp, so how did you happen to stumble on us if you have no interest in the subjects?
This is a gambling related thread not a horse racing thread. People converge on this forum because general betting is dead. You know that too.
Nothing other than calling you out, how much honesty do you need?
Clyde made a couple of interesting points ,,,,then he allowed a halfwit to drag him into a tit for tat . Pity
True fullset.
Mark Twain "Never argue with stupid people. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"
I'm getting far too much experience
Mark Twain "Never argue with stupid people. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"
I'm getting far too much experience
CB29 - I guess the point I was making (badly) was that in all likelihood the fine is so large because the offender was found to have no protocols/systems in place whatsoever to ensure they complied with the Gambling Act. The Act has been in place since 2004/05. So in essence they have been failing to comply and breaking the rules for 20+ years.
The very unlikely alternative is that they have had strict protocols/systems in place since 2004/05 and complied fully with the Act until about 2022. And then at that point (just as all the non-compliance issues and massive fines were hitting the headlines), they suddenly decided to abandon all of the protocols/systems that they had in place (just before the GC conducted their Compliance Assessment!).
As I say, that seems very unlikely, so the size of the fine probably reflects (like many of the other huge fines dished out in the past few years law-breaking bookmakers) that the bookmaker concerned has had no regard whatsoever for the Gambling Act and has been blatantly in breach of it for about 20 years.
As such the fine isn't really that much (imo).
The very unlikely alternative is that they have had strict protocols/systems in place since 2004/05 and complied fully with the Act until about 2022. And then at that point (just as all the non-compliance issues and massive fines were hitting the headlines), they suddenly decided to abandon all of the protocols/systems that they had in place (just before the GC conducted their Compliance Assessment!).
As I say, that seems very unlikely, so the size of the fine probably reflects (like many of the other huge fines dished out in the past few years law-breaking bookmakers) that the bookmaker concerned has had no regard whatsoever for the Gambling Act and has been blatantly in breach of it for about 20 years.
As such the fine isn't really that much (imo).
The fine isn’t that much ?
Do you think any of those involved in the post office scandal,the contaminated blood scandal,the countless social workers who badly let children down in some cases ending in death and many many more will receive fines like this ?
Do you think any of those involved in the post office scandal,the contaminated blood scandal,the countless social workers who badly let children down in some cases ending in death and many many more will receive fines like this ?
The fine is a large one relative to the size of the business - bigger in relative terms than the one dished out recently to Billie's.
The problem as I see it is that the useless and malevolent Gambling Commission don't provide definitive instructions on what action bookmakers should take and then punish them when they break the "rules". Laughable if not so serious.
The problem as I see it is that the useless and malevolent Gambling Commission don't provide definitive instructions on what action bookmakers should take and then punish them when they break the "rules". Laughable if not so serious.
I don't know much about Corbett's specifically, there are now just too many of these cowboys (pretending to be bookmakers) out there to keep track of them all.
But you only have to look at the names of their "sister sites" (which include: Plaza Royal Casino, Queen Play, Hippodrome On-line Casino, Loot Casino, Mirror Bingo & Jackpot City Casino) to understand that they aren't actually "bookmakers" at all - they are just a front for casino games, slots and bingo.
They've been fined for being in breach of the Gambling Act (and as explained above - in all likelihood they have been operating outside of the Gambling Act for about 20 years).
If you can point me in the direction of an actual bookmaker (on-line) that has been operating legally for the past 20 years (adhering to the 2004/05 Gambling Act), I'll defend them to the hilt - but I know you can't! - because no such entity exists!
If I'd been operating outside of the law for nearly 20 years, I'd expect to get fined more than a week's takings (imo). It probably amounts to a fraction of one percent of their illegal take.
But you only have to look at the names of their "sister sites" (which include: Plaza Royal Casino, Queen Play, Hippodrome On-line Casino, Loot Casino, Mirror Bingo & Jackpot City Casino) to understand that they aren't actually "bookmakers" at all - they are just a front for casino games, slots and bingo.
They've been fined for being in breach of the Gambling Act (and as explained above - in all likelihood they have been operating outside of the Gambling Act for about 20 years).
If you can point me in the direction of an actual bookmaker (on-line) that has been operating legally for the past 20 years (adhering to the 2004/05 Gambling Act), I'll defend them to the hilt - but I know you can't! - because no such entity exists!
If I'd been operating outside of the law for nearly 20 years, I'd expect to get fined more than a week's takings (imo). It probably amounts to a fraction of one percent of their illegal take.
Read the Gambling Act - then pop back and give me the name of an on-line bookmaker that that hasn't been blatantly in breach of it over the past 20 years.
I’ve absolutely no interest in reading the gambling act but what I do know is the legal bookmaking industry is been bullied by the gambling commission.
jimnast25 Mar 25 10:29Joined: 03 Jan 01 | Topic/replies: 15,877 | Blogger: jimnast's blog
I’ve absolutely no interest in reading the gambling act
That puts you in the same boat as all of the on-line firms that have been fined for blatantly and persistently ignoring it.
Are the GC over-reacting to make up for 20 years of being asleep at the wheel? Almost certainly. But what came first and brought about the current situation is 20 years of on-line bookmakers ignoring the Gambling Act.
I’ve absolutely no interest in reading the gambling act
That puts you in the same boat as all of the on-line firms that have been fined for blatantly and persistently ignoring it.
Are the GC over-reacting to make up for 20 years of being asleep at the wheel? Almost certainly. But what came first and brought about the current situation is 20 years of on-line bookmakers ignoring the Gambling Act.
In accordance to their profits the fine is harsh imo.
In the long it is not going going to make it any easier for the average punter to deposit and bet without fear of restrictions or checks.
Not what we all want, is it?
In the long it is not going going to make it any easier for the average punter to deposit and bet without fear of restrictions or checks.
Not what we all want, is it?
foxy25 Mar 25 10:50Joined: 26 Dec 00 | Topic/replies: 13,061 | Blogger: foxy's blog
Ignoring unworkable unfair and unrealistic policies
Where were you (and all the other people now claiming this) back in 2004/05 when the Act was introduced?
The answer is they were nowhere to be seen! - because everybody (including the Bookmakers and the rag they sponsor - the Racing Post) saw the legislation as a massive liberalisation of the laws/rules governing the whole gambling sector, which of course it was.
ffs - they were given the most industry friendly regulations in the entire world. All they had to do was comply with them.
Ignoring unworkable unfair and unrealistic policies
Where were you (and all the other people now claiming this) back in 2004/05 when the Act was introduced?
The answer is they were nowhere to be seen! - because everybody (including the Bookmakers and the rag they sponsor - the Racing Post) saw the legislation as a massive liberalisation of the laws/rules governing the whole gambling sector, which of course it was.
ffs - they were given the most industry friendly regulations in the entire world. All they had to do was comply with them.
Have you ever had dealings with the gambling commission the management?
"Were their"offences"online or also in shops?"
Following a review of the operating licence undertaken against Corbett Bookmakers Limited (the Licensee) the Commission found that the Licensee:
Breached paragraphs 1 and 2 of Licence Condition 12.1.1 - Anti-money laundering - Prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing.
Failed to comply with paragraphs 1a, 1b, 1c and Paragraph 2 of social responsibility code provision 3.4.1 - Customer Interaction.
In addition, Officials consider the Licensee failed to fully consider Ordinary Code Provision (“OCP”) 2.1.2 paragraph 1 – Anti-money laundering - other than casino.
Following a review of the operating licence undertaken against Corbett Bookmakers Limited (the Licensee) the Commission found that the Licensee:
Breached paragraphs 1 and 2 of Licence Condition 12.1.1 - Anti-money laundering - Prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing.
Failed to comply with paragraphs 1a, 1b, 1c and Paragraph 2 of social responsibility code provision 3.4.1 - Customer Interaction.
In addition, Officials consider the Licensee failed to fully consider Ordinary Code Provision (“OCP”) 2.1.2 paragraph 1 – Anti-money laundering - other than casino.
Shops will have been cash I imagine. So probable the breaches were for telephone clients? as they've long since abandoned an online sports website. Their balance sheet is very strong (and prudent) for a company of their size, although clearly less so now!
I've been trying (without success) to find a link or mention of their casino operations. I've checked Queen Play which is owned by Marketplay Ltd which lists 11 websites under it's control including Plaza Royal. Can't see anything which suggests they are linked to Corbettsports TM? Loot Casino doesn't appear to be either. Only incorporated a year ago by a bloke called Benjamin Starr. Not looked at the other two websites you mention
I've been trying (without success) to find a link or mention of their casino operations. I've checked Queen Play which is owned by Marketplay Ltd which lists 11 websites under it's control including Plaza Royal. Can't see anything which suggests they are linked to Corbettsports TM? Loot Casino doesn't appear to be either. Only incorporated a year ago by a bloke called Benjamin Starr. Not looked at the other two websites you mention
jimnast25 Mar 25 11:41Joined: 03 Jan 01 | Topic/replies: 15,880 | Blogger: jimnast's blog
Have you ever had dealings with the gambling commission the management?
No. I did have a couple of close friends that (like nearly all Independent's at the time) were put out of business by the way that their fee structures massively favoured the bigger firms.
I'm not a fan of the Gambling Commission - they're just the same as every other so-called regulator - utterly hopeless/impotent for decades and then needing to be seen to act (or over react) to compensate for their previous inadequacies.
I'm just making the point (contrary to what the Racing Post would have you believe) that everything happening now is a direct consequence of the actions/behaviour of on-line (so-called) bookmakers. Pretending that they are the victim is laughable. If you take the p1ss or break the law for 20 years, sooner or later you pay the price - usually in the form of a backlash.
Have you ever had dealings with the gambling commission the management?
No. I did have a couple of close friends that (like nearly all Independent's at the time) were put out of business by the way that their fee structures massively favoured the bigger firms.
I'm not a fan of the Gambling Commission - they're just the same as every other so-called regulator - utterly hopeless/impotent for decades and then needing to be seen to act (or over react) to compensate for their previous inadequacies.
I'm just making the point (contrary to what the Racing Post would have you believe) that everything happening now is a direct consequence of the actions/behaviour of on-line (so-called) bookmakers. Pretending that they are the victim is laughable. If you take the p1ss or break the law for 20 years, sooner or later you pay the price - usually in the form of a backlash.
CB29 - Life is too short and I am too busy to do a forensic investigation on Corbett's specifically. That's the job of the Gambling Commission and when they finally bothered to do some compliance checks it didn't end well for Corbett's (hence this thread).
My take (at a glance) is that after failing on most/multiple areas of compliance in their actual bookmaking operation - they closed down their own on-line casino type operation completely and they are now (presumably for a %) redirecting such customers to some other "wheels and reels" operators.
Whether those other operators are complying with the Gambling Act or not - is anybody's guess!
My take (at a glance) is that after failing on most/multiple areas of compliance in their actual bookmaking operation - they closed down their own on-line casino type operation completely and they are now (presumably for a %) redirecting such customers to some other "wheels and reels" operators.
Whether those other operators are complying with the Gambling Act or not - is anybody's guess!
"I'm not a fan of the Gambling Commission - they're just the same as every other so-called regulator - utterly hopeless/impotent for decades and then needing to be seen to act (or over react) to compensate for their previous inadequacies."
Not many people would disagree with that.
Not many people would disagree with that.
The management
I do agree with most of your 102 post like your two friends they made it very difficult for the oncourse bookmakers with some ridiculous ideas and requests including allowing them the decide there own place terms .
Utterly hopeless is a huge understatement
I do agree with most of your 102 post like your two friends they made it very difficult for the oncourse bookmakers with some ridiculous ideas and requests including allowing them the decide there own place terms .
Utterly hopeless is a huge understatement
What I was trying to establish was whether the fines were sports betting related or casino related. If the links to casinos are affiliate links then it's clearly sports betting related fines.
I get a fair few spam emails and texts, presumably mostly from illegal operators and they are prolly 100% slots and casinos, despite me never using either (other than free spins). That (aside from the research) shows me where gambling addiction mostly lies. Yet it is the sports betting side that appears to be picking up the big fines.
From my recollection the big bookies had far worse breaches than these and picked up similar fines?
From my recollection the big bookies had far worse breaches than these and picked up similar fines?
So you consider me a halfwit for challenging you regardless of the subject and then state you never go near slots etc but wonder why you receive spam because other than free spins you never use the sites?
Jimnast - when I post I do always try my best to make the distinction between actual bookmakers (taking bets on real events) and the big on-line (so-called) bookmakers that are transitioning as quickly as they can away from bookmaking into new mediums and products (primarily "gaming") as their preferred business.
I actually feel a bit sorry for genuine bookmakers - they are being tarred with the same brush because it's not in the interests of the huge on-line operators (now primarily focussed on gaming) to highlight this distinction. Then you throw in the full support of the Racing Post also doing their utmost to pretend there isn't a distinction between gaming and gambling.
If the big on-line operators were trying to defend their real business (slots/casino games) on it's own merits, they know they'd be screwed. So in essence real bookmakers are being used as a protective shield by businesses that no longer have any real interest in genuine bookmaking themselves. It's a sorry mess for sure but all the power lies with the pretend bookmakers.
I actually feel a bit sorry for genuine bookmakers - they are being tarred with the same brush because it's not in the interests of the huge on-line operators (now primarily focussed on gaming) to highlight this distinction. Then you throw in the full support of the Racing Post also doing their utmost to pretend there isn't a distinction between gaming and gambling.
If the big on-line operators were trying to defend their real business (slots/casino games) on it's own merits, they know they'd be screwed. So in essence real bookmakers are being used as a protective shield by businesses that no longer have any real interest in genuine bookmaking themselves. It's a sorry mess for sure but all the power lies with the pretend bookmakers.
I've had over 100 different sports bookmaker accounts and I don't wonder why I get spam emails. It's a virtual certainty. The free spins would be on sports bookmaker sites like Freds or Hills, not on casino sites, of which I'd never had any accounts.
I don't consider you a halfwit because you are trolling me, that was fullset. Clearly attention to detail, or applied analysis, isn't a strong point of yours.
I don't consider you a halfwit because you are trolling me, that was fullset. Clearly attention to detail, or applied analysis, isn't a strong point of yours.
My strongpoint is highlighting where you dig yourself a hole e.g you also state the spam presumably comes from illegal operators, surely attention to detail would confirm this or otherwise?
Plenty of other examples and none of a trolling nature, you appear to hold a higher opinion of yourself than most would given the nature of your threads i.e guessing and speculation with improbable analogies etc.
HTH
Plenty of other examples and none of a trolling nature, you appear to hold a higher opinion of yourself than most would given the nature of your threads i.e guessing and speculation with improbable analogies etc.
HTH
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539