Bavarian-Board.co.uk - BMW Owners Discussion Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > General Forums > General Off Topic Forum
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - It’s all about safety!
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedIt’s all about safety!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 9>
Author
Message
spokey View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard

Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
Direct Link To This Post Topic: It’s all about safety!
    Posted: 31-December-2005 at 13:59
From the Telegraph:

Quote Postcode lottery of speed camera fines
By David Millward, Transport Correspondent
(Filed: 31/12/2005)

Drivers caught speeding and jumping red lights are far more likely to be prosecuted in some areas than others, figures showed yesterday.

Details obtained by The Daily Telegraph indicate that a speed camera lottery has evolved, with some forces more than twice as likely to fine offenders.

 

The accounts of 35 safety camera partnerships showed that in some areas more than half of those drivers caught escaped automatic fines and points on their licence, while elsewhere every offender was punished.

Supporters and opponents of speed cameras united last night to condemn the inconsistency of enforcement. They said it raised questions over a key part of the Government's road safety policy.

"The message needs to be the same for drivers in all areas," said a spokesman for Brake, the road safety charity, which backs speed cameras.

Paul Smith, of Safespeed, one of the most vociferous critics of cameras, said: "This is a great cause for concern. We have lost control of the entire system."

Hailed by the Government as a vital weapon in its drive to bring down road deaths, the speed camera is regarded by some as little more than a cash cow designed to extract money from motorists.

Chris Grayling, the Tory transport spokesman, said the figures further exposed the Government's speed camera strategy.

"It has become clear in recent weeks that they are being used as a stealth tax and not for road safety purposes," he said.

"Now we know they are not even being enforced properly and this is making a mockery of the argument that they are an important tool in reducing casualties. It is time that speed cameras were used properly and consistently."

Whitehall figures showed that when drivers crossed into neighbouring counties they ran a significantly higher risk of punishment.

Almost one in four caught in South Yorkshire were not fined despite being warned of intended prosecution. But in neighbouring West Yorkshire fines and penalty points were imposed on every culprit.

Other partnerships to act against 100 per cent of motorists were Bedfordshire and Luton, Cheshire, Hertfordshire, Humberside, Kent and West Mercia.

While London was the only partnership to take action against less than half of offenders, several others appear to have decided not to prosecute a significant proportion.

In Greater Manchester, only 53 per cent received fixed penalty notices, while in the West Midlands the proportion was 59 per cent.

The lower prosecution rate in urban areas is believed to reflect a higher proportion of unregistered cars and foreign-owned cars, which makes tracking them down difficult.

About one in four in North Wales escaped fines, despite the tough line on speeding taken by Richard Brunstrom, the chief constable.

Many vehicles travelling through the area are driven by tourists - often Irish motorists using Holyhead ferries.

The discrepancies between prosecution rates can also be accounted for by some partnerships preferring speed awareness courses to fines.

The Transport Department said the figures could also be affected by motorists challenging the notice of intended prosecution or emergency vehicles caught on camera.

Difficulties in enforcement are known to have been exacerbated by inaccuracies in the number plate recognition databases used to identify offending motorists.

The Home Office admitted this year that information held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency was only 40 per cent correct, while the records of the Police National Computer were only 79 per cent accurate.


With records that accurate, I just simply cannot wait to see how effective this fascist invasion of our privacy with blanket ANPR will be. I can see thousands of motorists being harrassed for absolutely no reason at all.

Still, at least it's legal, stops crime and prevents terrorism, eh?

Ciao,
Spokey

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
livvy View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II


Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-December-2005 at 14:11
Legal  = yes

Help in the fight against crime & terrorism = yes 


Would you have preferred 100% prosecution rate everywhere (just for consistency)  ? 

Are the prosecution rates the same for offences detected other than with cameras ?

No they won't be, that's life & discretion.

Suggest the Police do away with discretion over prosecutions if that's what you really want.


Edited by livvy
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
Back to Top
spokey View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard

Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-December-2005 at 14:14
If it was about safety, and they were genuinely concerned, then yes. But what I deduce from this is that even (some of) the police think this obsession with speed is a waste of time.
Ciao,
Spokey

Back to Top
livvy View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II


Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-December-2005 at 14:43
Originally posted by spokey spokey wrote:

If it was about safety, and they were genuinely concerned, then yes. But what I deduce from this is that even (some of) the police think this obsession with speed is a waste of time.



OR

You could deduce that some don't put enough resources into processing the prosecutions & have far more than others to process.

Of course the list also shows the perecentages of those receiving a fine after receiving a NIP. What if the ones that show 100% didn't bother sending out a NIP in the cases that they had already decided they wouldn't prosecute for (before sending it out), whilst the others always sent out the NIP first & then made the decision of whether to prosecute or not ?

That would have a large affect on those percentages.

Also what about the forces that offer DIS ?

That would mean no fine after the NIP was issued where DIS was taken up. Not all forces offer DIS, so that would affect percentages.

As I say, a lot of hot air by the same groups over statistics that mean very little. You can read what you like into them, but the Police are not making any statements in line with your conclusion.


Edited by livvy
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
Back to Top
spokey View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard

Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-December-2005 at 16:09
Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

You could deduce that some don't put enough resources into processing the prosecutions & have far more than others to process.


I'm confused: surely nothing could be more important than eliminating all those unnecessary deaths from our roads?!
Ciao,
Spokey

Back to Top
livvy View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II


Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-December-2005 at 16:36
Originally posted by spokey spokey wrote:

Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

You could deduce that some don't put enough resources into processing the prosecutions & have far more than others to process.


I'm confused: surely nothing could be more important than eliminating all those unnecessary deaths from our roads?!


Sadly with only a finite amount of resources you can't target all your resources to one activity.

Are you suggesting because it's so important that maybe they should increase the fines, so that they can employ more staff & get all offences processed ? Is that the sort of thing you'd support in the circumstances & maybe a bit of zero tolerance with the margins over the limit (none of this 10% +2mph stuff anywhere) ?

Believe it or not there are those who complain that the small numbers of traffic officers are nowhere near enough & there are those who complain that they should be out catching burglars, rapists , muggers & murderers instead of harassing motorists. I don't know, you just can't please some people.


Edited by livvy
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
Back to Top
spokey View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard

Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-December-2005 at 21:11
Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

Originally posted by spokey spokey wrote:

Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

You could deduce that some don't put enough resources into processing the prosecutions & have far more than others to process.


I'm confused: surely nothing could be more important than eliminating all those unnecessary deaths from our roads?!


Sadly with only a finite amount of resources you can't target all your resources to one activity.

Are you suggesting because it's so important that maybe they should increase the fines, so that they can employ more staff & get all offences processed ? Is that the sort of thing you'd support in the circumstances & maybe a bit of zero tolerance with the margins over the limit (none of this 10% +2mph stuff anywhere) ?

Believe it or not there are those who complain that the small numbers of traffic officers are nowhere near enough & there are those who complain that they should be out catching burglars, rapists , muggers & murderers instead of harassing motorists. I don't know, you just can't please some people.


I'm not the one running multi-million pound advertising campaigns that say "Speed kills", livvy.


Ciao,
Spokey

Back to Top
livvy View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II


Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-December-2005 at 21:14
Originally posted by spokey spokey wrote:

Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

Originally posted by spokey spokey wrote:

Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

You could deduce that some don't put enough resources into processing the prosecutions & have far more than others to process.


I'm confused: surely nothing could be more important than eliminating all those unnecessary deaths from our roads?!


Sadly with only a finite amount of resources you can't target all your resources to one activity.

Are you suggesting because it's so important that maybe they should increase the fines, so that they can employ more staff & get all offences processed ? Is that the sort of thing you'd support in the circumstances & maybe a bit of zero tolerance with the margins over the limit (none of this 10% +2mph stuff anywhere) ?

Believe it or not there are those who complain that the small numbers of traffic officers are nowhere near enough & there are those who complain that they should be out catching burglars, rapists , muggers & murderers instead of harassing motorists. I don't know, you just can't please some people.


I'm not the one running multi-million pound advertising campaigns that say "Speed kills", livvy.



Got to try & get the message across somehow that people have to observe speed limits.
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
Back to Top
spokey View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard

Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-December-2005 at 21:30
Yes, but if it's that important to the powers that be, then surely they should enforce the rules strictly.

By not enforcing the rules strictly, they're not implying "we're overworked", they're implying "it's not really important."

Can you see them letting attempted murder cases go because they're understaffed? I don't think so. But if you read the government line, it says "speed kills", so if you speed, you're trying to kill, which is ... attempted murder.
Ciao,
Spokey

Back to Top
livvy View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II


Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-December-2005 at 21:36
Originally posted by spokey spokey wrote:

Yes, but if it's that important to the powers that be, then surely they should enforce the rules strictly.

By not enforcing the rules strictly, they're not implying "we're overworked", they're implying "it's not really important."

Can you see them letting attempted murder cases go because they're understaffed? I don't think so. But if you read the government line, it says "speed kills", so if you speed, you're trying to kill, which is ... attempted murder.


Think you need to read a little legislation, it's confusing you obviously.
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
Back to Top
spokey View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard

Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-January-2006 at 07:07
Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

Originally posted by spokey spokey wrote:

Yes, but if it's that important to the powers that be, then surely they should enforce the rules strictly.

By not enforcing the rules strictly, they're not implying "we're overworked", they're implying "it's not really important."

Can you see them letting attempted murder cases go because they're understaffed? I don't think so. But if you read the government line, it says "speed kills", so if you speed, you're trying to kill, which is ... attempted murder.


Think you need to read a little legislation, it's confusing you obviously.


Livvy, who, apart from the police and lawyers, reads every bit of legislation?

My point is that the government has created an overwhelming perception that an arbitrary speed limit, by itself, is all we need to drive safely. There have been more adverts showing the putative consequences of speeding and there is more enforcement of speeding than any other driving offense. Now it transpires that speed policing is not consistently enforced, which, to my mind (and to the minds of the pro-speed and anti-speed campaigners mentioned in the article) says that the various police departments do not all regard speeding as the horror that it's made out to be.

If all the police honestly believed that speeding was an important part of reducing road deaths, then they would make the effort to prosecute every speeder. So either they don't believe it, or they don't really care about deaths on the road.

I'd prefer to believe that the police do care about deaths on the road.
Ciao,
Spokey

Back to Top
livvy View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II


Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-January-2006 at 07:39
Originally posted by spokey spokey wrote:


My point is that the government has created an overwhelming perception that an arbitrary speed limit, by itself, is all we need to drive safely.


That might be your perception but that is clearly not the case, otherwise it would be the only offence for which people are prosecuted & it is not. Look at the other measures in the Road Safety bill that do not have anything to do with speeding. I think it is more a case of some anti-camera groups like to focus on the use of cameras & suggest they are the only thing being done, when it is not.

Quote
There have been more adverts showing the putative consequences of speeding and there is more enforcement of speeding than any other driving offense.


The last couple of governemnt driving messages I have seen on TV have been about the perils of driving whilst tired actually. (Something again being addressed in the Road Safety bill)

Quote
Now it transpires that speed policing is not consistently enforced, which, to my mind (and to the minds of the pro-speed and anti-speed campaigners mentioned in the article) says that the various police departments do not all regard speeding as the horror that it's made out to be.

If all the police honestly believed that speeding was an important part of reducing road deaths, then they would make the effort to prosecute every speeder. So either they don't believe it, or they don't really care about deaths on the road.

I'd prefer to believe that the police do care about deaths on the road.


Again that is "to your mind".

There are variations in the enforcement of all offences on a regional basis & for a variety of reasons. I've already earlier given several examples that could easily account for the variations in the figures you showed & they weren't because of a view that the relative force held in relation to speed enforcement. They haven't said that have they ? That is why those figures actually reveal very little.

The Police, on speeding & other traffic offences, have always used discretion. The majority of the public want the Police to use discretion where speeding is concerned ( & indeed other offences). Our Police, police us by consent & as such require the support & co-operation of the public. As such prosecuting motorists for very very small breaches of the speed limit (say 1mph over) is not popular. There will be circumstances that prosecutions may occur for very very small breaches, because of other factors that the accused may not be aware of at the time, but in the main a little discretion is used for those small amounts.

The Police don't catch every burglar & they don't cahrge every burglar. Rates will vary between forces as well. None of that means the Police don't care about burglary & I think to suggest such a thing to the Police would be insulting. The same could be said for the heinous offence of rape.

I say again speeding is not all it is about, but it is one important part in the fight to reduce deaths. People complain about other offences that people commit, but will speed themselves because it suits them. Those other offences & speeding are all tied together though. They are all evidence (speeding included) that people show little regard for the established rules of the road or other road users. They are indicative of a selfishness in many drivers who believe that their considerations & priorities are all that matter, not those of others.
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
Back to Top
Peter Fenwick View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar

Joined: 27-August-2003
Location: Lost somewhere in time...
Status: Offline
Points: 6484
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-January-2006 at 07:44

My dad once said there's no point in having a discussion/argument with somone if there's no way you will change their opinion. He was right.

 

Give it up guys

Oh and I'm not happy that the Cleveland prosecution rate is 99%



Edited by Peter Fenwick
Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel.
Back to Top
spokey View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard

Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-January-2006 at 07:54
Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

  Our Police, police us by consent 


They're putting up blanket ANPR coverage of the country without any discussion, let alone consent.
Ciao,
Spokey

Back to Top
livvy View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II


Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-January-2006 at 08:00
Originally posted by spokey spokey wrote:

Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

  Our Police, police us by consent 


They're putting up blanket ANPR coverage of the country without any discussion, let alone consent.


I've already said what is required to stop that (as it's within our current laws) & there is not the depth of feeling required & I guess the government know that. The public gave them a mandate entrusting them to do what was necessary on our behalf & they are acting on that.

Edited by livvy
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
Back to Top
livvy View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II


Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-January-2006 at 08:02
Originally posted by Peter Fenwick Peter Fenwick wrote:

Oh and I'm not happy that the Cleveland prosecution rate is 99%


You'd rather it was 100% as Spokey seems to be suggesting it was if the Police were serious about dealing with speeding ?


Edited by livvy
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
Back to Top
spokey View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard

Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-January-2006 at 08:11
Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:


Quote
Now it transpires that speed policing is not consistently enforced, which, to my mind (and to the minds of the pro-speed and anti-speed campaigners mentioned in the article) says that the various police departments do not all regard speeding as the horror that it's made out to be.

If all the police honestly believed that speeding was an important part of reducing road deaths, then they would make the effort to prosecute every speeder. So either they don't believe it, or they don't really care about deaths on the road.

I'd prefer to believe that the police do care about deaths on the road.


Again that is "to your mind".


Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

The Police don't catch every burglar & they don't cahrge every burglar. Rates will vary between forces as well. None of that means the Police don't care about burglary & I think to suggest such a thing to the Police would be insulting. The same could be said for the heinous offence of rape.


Well, it may be insulting, but the response I had from the police when I got burgled was pretty insulting. I got the distinct impression that the police do NOT care about burglary. But that is an entirely different discussion.

Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

I say again speeding is not all it is about, but it is one important part in the fight to reduce deaths. People complain about other offences that people commit, but will speed themselves because it suits them. Those other offences & speeding are all tied together though. They are all evidence (speeding included) that people show little regard for the established rules of the road or other road users. They are indicative of a selfishness in many drivers who believe that their considerations & priorities are all that matter, not those of others.


I frequently drive through the countryside, because that is the kind of driving I enjoy. I am frequently amazed by how often people I overtake on open country roads (because I'm doing 60 and they're doing 40) will catch up to me and tailgate me in villages (because I'm doing 30 and they're still doing 40.) If we come to a scamera, they'll suddenty back off, but once we're past the scamera, they're right up my chuff again. Some of them even overtake me.

I frequently drive on motorways, because of my job, and I am frequently struck by the number of people parked in the middle lane at 65MPH. No-one seems to know about this "keep left" thingummy.

I am also struck by the way that the de facto speed limit on single-carriageway A and B roads is actually 40MPH when these roads get busy, because HGV's can't be overtaken. I've also seen that HGV's contribute dramatically to bad speed averages on motorways.

Personally, I'd be happy to average 65MPH on a journey to my office. In reality, I generally average less than 40MPH for an 85-mile journey that is, apart from about 3 miles, motorway all the way. So, is it any wonder that when people get a bit of free road they may get a bit careless about speed?

There are things that the government can do to reduce frustration on the road and make it less stressful for the motorist (like encouraging / enforcing "keep left" for all motorists and revising speed limits for HGV's upwards or banning them during peak traffic hours), instead of adding to the pressures of driving. I think that would probably make people more tolerant and polite.
Ciao,
Spokey

Back to Top
livvy View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II


Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-January-2006 at 08:33
Originally posted by spokey spokey wrote:


I frequently drive through the countryside, because that is the kind of driving I enjoy. I am frequently amazed by how often people I overtake on open country roads (because I'm doing 60 and they're doing 40) will catch up to me and tailgate me in villages (because I'm doing 30 and they're still doing 40.) If we come to a scamera, they'll suddenty back off, but once we're past the scamera, they're right up my chuff again. Some of them even overtake me.


Perhaps SPECS cameras in villages could help with that, they would keep to the speed limit through it then.


Quote
I frequently drive on motorways, because of my job, and I am frequently struck by the number of people parked in the middle lane at 65MPH. No-one seems to know about this "keep left" thingummy.

I am also struck by the way that the de facto speed limit on single-carriageway A and B roads is actually 40MPH when these roads get busy, because HGV's can't be overtaken. I've also seen that HGV's contribute dramatically to bad speed averages on motorways.

Personally, I'd be happy to average 65MPH on a journey to my office. In reality, I generally average less than 40MPH for an 85-mile journey that is, apart from about 3 miles, motorway all the way. So, is it any wonder that when people get a bit of free road they may get a bit careless about speed?

There are things that the government can do to reduce frustration on the road and make it less stressful for the motorist (like encouraging / enforcing "keep left" for all motorists and revising speed limits for HGV's upwards or banning them during peak traffic hours), instead of adding to the pressures of driving. I think that would probably make people more tolerant and polite.


I agree that more could be done about lane discipline & other poor acts. They aren't ignored though, prosecutions do take place for those offences & guess what, people bitch about that & say, "but look at them their doing it as well". Speeding isn't the only answer I agree, but ignoring speeding isn't the answer either. As I say it's just one of many lacklustre disciplines that are evident in people's driving.
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
Back to Top
spokey View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard

Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-January-2006 at 08:40
Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

Originally posted by spokey spokey wrote:


I frequently drive through the countryside, because that is the kind of driving I enjoy. I am frequently amazed by how often people I overtake on open country roads (because I'm doing 60 and they're doing 40) will catch up to me and tailgate me in villages (because I'm doing 30 and they're still doing 40.) If we come to a scamera, they'll suddenty back off, but once we're past the scamera, they're right up my chuff again. Some of them even overtake me.


Perhaps SPECS cameras in villages could help with that, they would keep to the speed limit through it then.


Well, yes, but SPECS make a big play about how invisible they are. I've never quite understood how they can claim to have an effect on road safety when no-one knows they are there, until they get the NIP.
Ciao,
Spokey

Back to Top
livvy View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II


Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-January-2006 at 08:43
Originally posted by spokey spokey wrote:

Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

Originally posted by spokey spokey wrote:


I frequently drive through the countryside, because that is the kind of driving I enjoy. I am frequently amazed by how often people I overtake on open country roads (because I'm doing 60 and they're doing 40) will catch up to me and tailgate me in villages (because I'm doing 30 and they're still doing 40.) If we come to a scamera, they'll suddenty back off, but once we're past the scamera, they're right up my chuff again. Some of them even overtake me.


Perhaps SPECS cameras in villages could help with that, they would keep to the speed limit through it then.



Well, yes, but SPECS make a big play about how invisible they are. I've never quite understood how they can claim to have an effect on road safety when no-one knows they are there, until they get the NIP.



I've always seen SPECS warning signs where ever I've seen the cameras.


Edited by livvy
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 9>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.164 seconds.