This site uses cookies

General Discussion

Shutterton Business Park

1550
84
OurSoul
OurSoul
25 Jun 2015 17:04

It's not called that any more is it?

 

And isn't the road into the estate a private road and therefore nothing to do with Devon County Council or TDC?

leatash
leatash
25 Jun 2015 17:14

It is a private road 

1 Agree
OurSoul
OurSoul
25 Jun 2015 17:16

Thought so. Thanks Leatash. 

 

 

DJ
DJ
25 Jun 2015 18:59

Shutterton Industrial Estate is the actual name of the road itself. It is a private road, but the owner is Teignbridge District Council, so it is their responsibility and not the Highways bit of Devon County Council. The area was renamed Dawlish Business Park some years ago, but the road name remains and the Shutteron Industrial Estate sign off the A 379 that used to point to the recycling centre is still there, just with the recycling bit blanked out. Half the businesses on there use one version of the name, and half the other, so it seems. It is a bit of a mess. Loads of Dawlish residents can tell you where Shutterton is, not so many know where the Business Park is. The kind of mess only a Committee could have organised.  

3 Agrees
User 4549
User 4549
25 Jun 2015 20:04

I have today made FOI request to Teignbridge, one of the reasons for this is you cannot have a Road Traffic Order on a private road, many more illegal threats made in the notice.

 

"On the lampost on the left as you enter the Park is an A4 size

notice, in that notice is a statement that a TRO has been
introduced.

Please supply a copy of the TRO plus the advertisement pertaining
to that TRO, also a copy of the attached terms and conditions
contained in that notice which is non existant, on what date was
the A4 sign erected, and enforcement commenced.

I understand that is is now no longer classed as a Business Park
but a Car Park if true please supply all paper work/emails which
lead upto that change.

There are also four private enforcement signs threatening fines and
CLAMPING around the Park.

From the inception and placement of the A4 size notice how many
Parking charges have been issued and what amount were the charges?.

1 Agree
OurSoul
OurSoul
25 Jun 2015 20:18

Oh that's interesting. 

DJ
DJ
25 Jun 2015 20:31

Those main parking notices have been there for quite a few years now. The parking notices went up and the yellow lines were painted after consultation meetings with Teignbridge (and then leader Alan Connett) and business owners/landlords and other interested parties from the estate this was due to the massive problems caused by overcrowded parking on pavements and on every spare square inch of kerbside on the estate. It was causing traders problems with their own parking, access in some cases, and few places for visiting customers to park.

The consultation process with those on the estate carried on for some months and over quite a few meetings. Because of the peculiarity of the road itself belonging to Teignbridge and not a generally adopted road the area was classed as a car park for the purpose of sorting out the car parking problems so that traders and their customers had an easier time and cars/motor homes etc weren't left parked up for weeks and months at a time. Partly, if I recall, this was also so that they didn't have to do the notices that appear in the paper for on road parking, it could be dealt with more quickly and more cheaply until the next round of notices was due to appear, at which point the idea was to include this area too. As a result the parking did improve hugely for a while but it is gradually creeping back to where it was. The Council did promise to review parking in the estate, as well as bring in a normal road version of parking regs and new signage to help people locate businesses on the estate. But money got short, plans changed, the colour of the Council leadership changed, other more pressing matters got prioritised and nothing else seemed to happen. 

Just out of interest, as someone who works there and who appreciated it when the parking chaos improved, what's your reason for questioning it?

1 Agree
User 4549
User 4549
25 Jun 2015 21:51

DJ

I agree that parking can be a problem and needs to be controlled, its the unprofessional way that the Council act, and in an illegal threatening way that I have a problem with, if they have issued fines they need to be reimbursed and enforcement needs to cease immediately until all faults are rectified.

Why didnt a council officer/emplyee with the correct experience visit and get the civil enforcement signs removed, also ensure that a large and easily visible sign with Terms and Conditions is placed at the entrance to the park so that drivers understand the risk they take if they park unlawfully.

The double yellow lines in many places have worn away and cannot be enforced, it will cost the tax payer thousands to repaint them.

1 Agree
OurSoul
OurSoul
26 Jun 2015 07:06

Isn't it just easier and less draining of council resources to simply write a letter to the council saying that the TRO doesn't apply to a private road? Your FOI request (one of many, I see - including one sent on Christmas Day lol!!)) doesn't say that anywhere - why beat around the bush - it makes no sense?

User 4549
User 4549
26 Jun 2015 10:10

OurSoul

 

You obviously didnt read and understand the many problems associated with with the site, there also is not ONE post with a parking no parking instruction on it, how do you expect motorists to see an A4 size notice on one lampost.

Would it be ok with you if just one A4 notice was situated in the Strand and thoughout Dawlish. You would need CEO's on permanent duty to issues fines 27/7.

I did fone them and they told me to use the FOI

Whats wrong with Xmas day they are CLOSED

3 Agrees
burneside
burneside
26 Jun 2015 10:25

I'm going to put in an FOI to find out who has been requesting details of people asking FOIs.

User 4549
User 4549
26 Jun 2015 10:59

Burnside.

Careful you will have OurSoul after you LOL

2 Agrees
OurSoul
OurSoul
26 Jun 2015 11:32

@User4549. No need to be so tetchy - it was a reasonable question as to why you went down the FOI route rather than just writing to them. 

 

@burneside. whatdotheyknow.com lists all these foi requests. happy to help. 

burneside
burneside
26 Jun 2015 12:00

Not quite, it only displays results of FOIs made via that particular site, the results are therefore incomplete.

DJ
DJ
26 Jun 2015 15:04

OK so I'm really confused now.  OurSoul asked the original question about the estate name and whether it was a private road.  But then User 4549 is jumping in about FOI requests about the parking.  Again, as someone who works on the estate, I've never heard of anyone actually receiving a fine or parking ticket or whatever.  Happy to be corrected on that, obviously but it seems strange to get so het up about it unless it has actually affected you or someone you know.  This is a subject that does concern me so I would like to know if the Council is actually ticketing people on the estate now and if anything has changed about the parking to suddenly get this interest in the subject.

 

1 Agree
OurSoul
OurSoul
26 Jun 2015 15:31

That's correct @Burnside. Hence me being careful to use the wording "these FOI requests". 

Netiquette
Netiquette
26 Jun 2015 16:22

Genuine question User 4549.  If you have submitted 58 FOI requests, mainly about traffic, can you say why/what it has achieved for you or the general public?  I'm thinking about the best use of council taxpayers money but obviously if the purpose is in the public interest I'd like to know about it.

 

2 Agrees
DJ
DJ
26 Jun 2015 17:41

I would still like to know if anyone has ever actually been given a ticket for parking on the estate and why User 4549 is getting so het up about the issue.

1 Agree
User 4549
User 4549
26 Jun 2015 18:59

Dj

As you work there have you actually checked or not what I have said about the signs? I am certainly not het up, and if you got a ticket unlawfully you would obviously be prepared to pay, and good on you.

If the council did things professionally and legally then there would not be a problem.

1 Agree
User 4549
User 4549
26 Jun 2015 19:44

Nettiquette

 

When DCC  applied to operate parking enforcement they had to ensure that all lines.signs and traffice orders had been checked and where necessary corrected to ensure they were enforceable. they did not do that (I have a copy of the letter stating from DCC they did not check) I also have a copy of the letter to the Minister of Transport confirming that they have checked all lines, signs and TRO's and where necessary have been corrected sent and signed by E Cholton Deputy Chief Executive DCC. He lied and later retired.

I and others have tried to get them to act professionally, they have issuied thousands of unlawful PCN's and when confronted in law and lost, they have kept the money, If thats ok with you and others, thats fine with me.

4 Agrees
FredBassett
FredBassett
30 Jun 2015 18:17

DCC & TDC have also been known to reduce and then try to enforce speed limits around the area without
the nessessary traffic orders and road modifications to support such. It seems even when they are caught out on legal grounds they still dont rectify their errors. Cockwood straight 30 limit not a built up area and no street lights. Starcross and Dawlish Warren 20 mph not legally enforceable according to the highway code there is no such limit. Holcombe speed camara officialy de-commissioned years ago but the furniture is still in place. Sure User 4549 knows of many more. The work he does in providing this info is excellent.

3 Agrees
User 4549
User 4549
30 Jun 2015 22:25

 

 

Fred Bassett, Thanks.

Another example of how Teignbridge operate.

A friend got six tickets heard nothing for 4 years and then the baliffs appeared and took his car and kept it for six months until   I got it back for him by researching the locations and taking it to the Adjudicator who reviewed my evidence  said to the Two Councils DCC & TDC you are in trouble here and cancelled the two left over from the others which had been cancelled, due to the following. One road did not exist, one had never had any parking restrictions as it was the lawn infront of the beach, the final two due to the parking bays having double yellow lines, so you could park legally but get a parking fine also.

As I have said many times if they did things lawfully and professionally there would never be a problem, but they never learn.

5 Agrees
FredBassett
FredBassett
08 Jul 2015 08:01

There's some chaps redoing the road markings just now. Not repairing any of the pot holes just painting around them. What a total waste of time and money.

1 Agree
OurSoul
OurSoul
08 Jul 2015 11:08

Good job it's not council tax payers money being wasted then isn't it? I assume that it's still a private road?

1 Agree
FredBassett
FredBassett
08 Jul 2015 11:54

They only seem to have renewed the ground markings around the burger bar, how strange !!!!

2 Agrees
DJ
DJ
08 Jul 2015 12:07

They probably have to do that as part of their agreement with the person who owns the burger van.  When all the parking issues were being sorted out years ago it was agreed that a Reserved space would be placed where it is for the burger van, this is then leased from the council, so it is paid for and I believe renewed annually (or at least that was the discussion that took place in the general meetings years ago, it might have been done differently when they had private conversations about it).  As it is a space that is paid for then I guess they have to keep the white markings around it up to date.

1 Agree
User 4549
User 4549
08 Jul 2015 12:35

 

DJ 

I have just spoken to the owner of Cleveland Garage and he confirms that he has received two parking tickets outside his garage one was cancelled the other cost him sixty pounds.

 

1 Agree
OurSoul
OurSoul
08 Jul 2015 13:07

Did you go knocking door to door of every business on the estate?

1 Agree
User 4549
User 4549
08 Jul 2015 15:27

OurSoulsaid

I guess you said that tongue in cheek, but no he is a friend of mine,  satisfied??

1 Agree
OurSoul
OurSoul
08 Jul 2015 17:35

Thanks for the polite reply. Tongue def in cheek lol. 

2 Agrees
DJ
DJ
08 Jul 2015 21:08

That's interesting to know User4549. Thanks for posting that. 

2 Agrees
User 4549
User 4549
08 Jul 2015 21:23

Teignbridge have until the 24th to answer my questions one of which was how many parking charge notices have been issued (how many have been paid and how many have been cancelled due to appeals?) since the placing of the A4 sign on the lampost, should be interesting, especially as the Private Enforcement signs threatening clamping and fines are still in situ, which makes any parking charge issued by TDC unlawful and fraudulent.

User 4549
User 4549
14 Jul 2015 15:17

Here is the answer to my questions which are also included in thi#eir response, the six tickets issued are totally illegal and fraudulent.

 

 
I am writing in respect of your recent application for the release of information held by this 
authority, the response is detailed below.  
 
Shutterton Business Park – Dawlish 
  Please supply a copy of the TRO plus the advertisement pertaining to that TRO, 
also a copy of the attached terms and conditions, date the sign erected, and 
enforcement commenced. 
  Please supply paperwork relating to the change from Business Park to a Car Park  
  How many Parking charges have been issued and what amount were the charges? 
o  The area is covered by a Teignbridge District Council (Civil Enforcement Off 
Street Parking Places) Order 2014, therefore we hold no information on a 
TRO (Orders can be viewed on our website). The TRO is mentioned in the notice on the lampost (my comment)
o  This order was advertised in March 2014 for 28 days as required and the 
sign erected in early April. So where is the copy of the Advert requested?  However enforcement by this department only 
commenced in October 2014. 
o  The area is named Dawlish Business Park within the order and has not 
changed. 
o  6 Penalty Charge Notices have been issued and 14 Warning Notices since 
October 2014.   
o  The Penalty Charge Notices are either £25.00 to £35.00.

 

 

PS.

There is nowhere to buy a parking ticket which is mentioned in the

A4 sign which says details attached there is nothing attached,

(Part of A4 sign)
A SUMMARY OF THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER AND ITS EFFECT ARE
SET OUT BELOW.
WHERE CHARGES ARE MADE FOR CAR PARKING THEY ARE SET OUT ON THE
ATTACHED NOTICE IF YOU DO NOT DISPLAY A VALID TICKET ON THE
WINDSCREEN OF THE CAR YOU WILL LIABLE TO PAY A PENALTY CHARGE
BREACHES OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER INCLUDE

1 Agree
OurSoul
OurSoul
14 Jul 2015 18:18

Great. So now are you going to formally write to the owners of the road and ask them why they created the TRO for a private road, and why they have been enforcing said TRO? Please let us know the outcome. 

 

The gripe of your Post Script is irrelevant though, as they don't charge for on-street parking there. The key part of the wording is "Where charges are made...". 

1 Agree
User 4549
User 4549
14 Jul 2015 18:56

lOurSoul,

Your question does not make sense its NOT on-street parking so of coure there is no charge, its OFF street parking that the threats and fines occur (Shutterton is OFF Street)

1 Agree
OurSoul
OurSoul
14 Jul 2015 19:04

Ok point taken. But my point is that no charge is made, so that's why there's nothing attached. 

1 Agree
User 4549
User 4549
14 Jul 2015 20:54

OurSoul,

 

Did you not read what I pasted from the notice in upper case, try reading it  "THEY ARE SET OUT ON THE

ATTACHED NOTICE" there is no attached notice, and six tickets (£25 £35) have been issued because no valid ticket was displayed on the vehicle, but there is nowhere to buy a valid parking ticket.

1 Agree
OurSoul
OurSoul
14 Jul 2015 22:09

User4549. You need to calm yourself down sir.

The notice states that where there's a parking charge then there's an attachment. However parking isn't charged for there, therefore there's no attachment. So, parking isn't charged there and therefore tickets can't be bought or displayed. I'm sure it's not just me who can read it as it's intended to be read. 

 

1 Agree
User 4549
User 4549
15 Jul 2015 07:45

OurSoul,

 

You still dont understand it so I give up trying to explain, have a good life.

 

 

1 Agree
DJ
DJ
15 Jul 2015 08:07

OurSoul is right that there are no parking charges on the estate, but the original parking notices that were erected on the estate made it clear that there were time limits for parking and over and above that then parking tickets could be issued.  It's the same as parking on a road, for free, up to a limit of say 2 hours, but after that you can be ticketed. You don't need to display a ticket there either but you run the risk of a parking attendant logging your vehicle in the same spot for longer than the allowed time. 

 I've had a look at the parking notice nearest to where I work and it is so faded I doubt anyone could make sense of it. 

2 Agrees
OurSoul
OurSoul
15 Jul 2015 08:37

Thanks DJ. I'm really at a loss as to why User4549 is unable to read plain English.  There's no attachment to the notice because parking isn't charged for. It's really that simple - there's no conspiracy I'm afraid. 

User 4549
User 4549
15 Jul 2015 11:39

Then why have six parking tickets (£25/£35) been issued by Teignbridge for not diisplaying a paid and displayed ticket and nowhere to buy a parking ticket? and why are there still four Private Enforcement Signs still there threatening parking charges and clamping which is now illegal.

That is definitely my last comment. so enjoy

1 Agree
Netiquette
Netiquette
15 Jul 2015 16:04

I don't follow either.   User4549 says it's down to not showing a pay and display ticket but the FOI request only asked how many penalties had been issued, not specifically due to not showing a pay and display ticket.  As DJ points out there are other reasons you can get a ticket, so maybe User4549 could clear that up.

2 Agrees
OurSoul
OurSoul
15 Jul 2015 16:56

Well quite Netiquette.  This bombshell about the penalties specifically being for not displaying "Pay & Display" tickets has come from nowhere! 

No wonder he fell out with Peter Harry over a "misunderstanding"...

OurSoul
OurSoul
15 Jul 2015 20:07

I've just seen the item in the Gazette regarding this story. Well, it's clear that it's actually been a non-story. At least it's been clarified for all to see (and hopefully understand and accept). 

HuwMatthews2
HuwMatthews2
16 Jul 2015 00:43

I don't really understand what these people are doing.

 

If I park my car on double yellow lines or other places where it is quite obvious that either I'm not supposed to park or the owner doesn't want me to park and I get a ticket then I'll pay it - I may not like it but I took my chances and lost.

 

It matters not whether the signage is correct or the double yellows have bars at the end etc, etc. I knew that I was not supposed to park there.

 

All this nonsense about trying to get out of it because the signs are wrong or the lines are only just visible is a symptom of whats wrong with this country!

 

If you've got that much time on your hands take up golf...or even better, do something useful and go and work for a charity for free. Either way - get a life and stop wasting the money I pay in Council Tax!

5 Agrees
FredBassett
FredBassett
16 Jul 2015 11:01

People that sit on their arses and do nothing to challenge the the likes of local authorities when they cut corners in order to save money and then rip off the public who they know wont challenge them is whats wrong with this country. Do the job properly and legally and there wont be a problem.

 

7 Agrees
HuwMatthews2
HuwMatthews2
16 Jul 2015 12:02

ROFL!

I want my councils to save money! Or at least not waste it on trivial matters such as whether or not there is a bar at the end of double yellow lines!

2 Agrees
leatash
leatash
16 Jul 2015 12:40

The point is that the law works both ways it is your responsibility to park according to the law but the local authority also has a obligation in law and there responsibility is that all lines, signs,road orders comply with the law. Now when the Police controled parking every line sign and road order was checked every six months and anything wrong was put right. Devon County and Teignbridge are cutting corners and i know of a number of places that road orders dont match the signs and in law it has to be correct and if its not then the motorist has a perfect right to question any tickets issued.

With double yellows the law is specific and the wording is they have to be APPARANT AND CONTINUES so if either of those words is not met ie: a break in the lines its not legal and it's as simple as that.

4 Agrees
OurSoul
OurSoul
16 Jul 2015 14:20

And if people didn't waste time and money on frivolous FOI requests, then maybe our councils might have enough money to spend on checking that the signs and lines are technically correct. 

4 Agrees
FredBassett
FredBassett
16 Jul 2015 19:08

@OurSoul

The councils have loads of money but they spend it wrong.

Incompetant staff

17 million on cycle paths

Compulsary purchase of peoples livelyhoods

Coucillor jollies and expenses

Solicitors fees for fighting cases as above when they get caught out

what do you think is happening to all the money being raked in through all the new houses being built think its around £10,000 per house

 

 
5 Agrees
leatash
leatash
16 Jul 2015 19:51

Maybe things like road orders could be available at the library that would save folk who think there's a problem with parking could access the information simply and with no cost to Devon County or is that to simple.

1 Agree
OurSoul
OurSoul
16 Jul 2015 21:23

FredBassett. As usual with you it's sensationalist headlines to attract the Agrees, but no substance behind the opinion disguised as fact. 

4 Agrees
FredBassett
FredBassett
16 Jul 2015 22:16

So the councils are not trying to compulsary purchase Warren Farm nor did they spend 17 million on a cycle path for a minority group. Perhaps they dont get any money from developers also.

As said before TROLL OFF and look at whats happening to Dawlish, then comment when you have educated yourself

4 Agrees
OurSoul
OurSoul
16 Jul 2015 22:40

"The councils have loads of money", says it all about your level of education.  And what's with this TROLL OFF you keeping shouting? You're the king of the trolls, after all. 

 

Compulsory purchasing happens everywhere. I look forward to your anti-HS2 rants. 

The councils didn't spend £17m of council tax money on the Exe Trail. 

Of course councils receive S106 money from developers - and it's for specified projects, not to go into a bottomless pit like you suggest.  

 

Why didn't you reference the other three sensationalist headline-grabbers from your earlier post?  And what are you actively doing to put right what you perceive to be wrongs? Are you "getting off your arse"?

 

 

 

 

Woodcock
Woodcock
16 Jul 2015 22:41

@ Fred Bassett

 

Cycle paths for a minority group? Which one? I've been riding on cycle paths for ages, I thought they were for everyone?

 

 

 

3 Agrees
HuwMatthews2
HuwMatthews2
17 Jul 2015 21:28

How come anyone who disagrees with someone else on this site is then labelled 'a troll'?

It's happened to me twice.

It's like a school playground sometimes.

 

Woodcock
Woodcock
17 Jul 2015 22:05

Were you the school troll?

1 Agree
burneside
burneside
17 Jul 2015 22:22

@Woodcock

Cyclists are a minority, as you well know, and have benefitted from £17m locally.

1 Agree
Woodcock
Woodcock
17 Jul 2015 22:24

This bloke again!

How many people have bicycles in their garage or garden shed? A minority?

burneside
burneside
17 Jul 2015 22:25

Yes.

1 Agree
Margaret Swift
Margaret Swift
17 Jul 2015 22:25

OurSoul is the biggest troll on this site, it is well known and about time she and all her incarnations were banned for ever! 

5 Agrees
Woodcock
Woodcock
17 Jul 2015 22:26

Am I meant to be an incarnation of Our soul??

burneside
burneside
17 Jul 2015 22:30

Well, OurSoul has posted under so many different names on this forum, anything is possible Woodstock.

5 Agrees
Woodcock
Woodcock
17 Jul 2015 22:34

Assume what you like Burnside, does that explain your attitude towards me? So far I've found this site to be nothing but negative.

Margaret Swift
Margaret Swift
17 Jul 2015 22:52

@Woodstock, And that is because OurSoul, Judith Chalmers , Mrs C and any other incarnation she goes under, takes pleasure in trolling and generally passing derogatory comments about anyone who opposes her views. The most intelligent and informative discussions take place when she is in a period of being banned, but they are sadly all too short. 

6 Agrees
Woodcock
Woodcock
17 Jul 2015 23:01

@Margaret Swift

 

I'm not Our Soul. If people assume I am and 'troll' me or whatever you call it then I'm unlikely to not react.

 

Margaret Swift
Margaret Swift
17 Jul 2015 23:03

One correction from me, I realise I have assumed OurSoul, Mrs C and Judith Chalmers is a female, I apologise, this person could quite easily be male. 

Woodcock
Woodcock
17 Jul 2015 23:11

That's a bit harsh on Judith Chalmers! She's a bit stocky I guess, but a man?

I didn't know she lived around here.

Margaret Swift
Margaret Swift
17 Jul 2015 23:28

@Woodcock, how would you know she (he) is a bit stocky? And what does 'then I'm

 unlikely to not react' mean'? 

Woodcock
Woodcock
17 Jul 2015 23:32

because I've seen her on the TV

Woodcock
Woodcock
17 Jul 2015 23:38

If someone trolls me expect a reaction. I thought my posts were easy to follow. I was refering to Judith Chalmers the presenter, not anybody else. I was being humorous.

 

Everyone seems so uptight on this site.

2 Agrees
Netiquette
Netiquette
18 Jul 2015 09:45

I don't think it's everyone Woodcock, just a few argumentative pots and kettles.   

4 Agrees
OurSoul
OurSoul
18 Jul 2015 11:20

What happens is that informative threads such as this one get hijacked by haters. It's a sad reflection on them, but there you go. A troll is someone who tries to get a reaction out of others without adding any value to a thread - I think it's clear for all to see which sister and brother double act was doing that late on Friday night...

burneside
burneside
18 Jul 2015 12:14

Only stating facts Mrs C, or are you denying that you have posted on this forum under multiple usernames, and been banned at least twice?

2 Agrees
elvis presley
elvis presley
18 Jul 2015 12:25

I'm  a bit confused. Is this really the correct spelling of OurSoul?

4 Agrees
User 4549
User 4549
18 Jul 2015 13:08

elvis presley

 

Say it quick and it sounds just right  LOL I wonder if Andy Mac is back??

2 Agrees
OurSoul
OurSoul
18 Jul 2015 13:16

I rest my case. 

burneside
burneside
18 Jul 2015 13:32

No denial then...?  I rest MY case.

3 Agrees
OurSoul
OurSoul
18 Jul 2015 13:47

Burneside. I've already previously stated that I've had to re-register twice through no choice of my own. Thanks for your contribution yet again. 

burneside
burneside
18 Jul 2015 14:00

"I've had to re-register twice through no choice of my own" - is that your fancy way of saying "I was banned twice because I am a poisonous troll"?

5 Agrees
HuwMatthews2
HuwMatthews2
18 Jul 2015 15:08

@Woodcock

 

There were no computers when I was at school.

 

Just looking at the posts above and who has and hasn't contributed to the original thread - it's fairly obvoius who is and isn't a 'troll' on here.

7 Agrees
OurSoul
OurSoul
18 Jul 2015 15:46

Exactly, Huw. Thank you. 

Woodcock
Woodcock
18 Jul 2015 16:27

@Netiquette, you're right, not everyone.

@HuwMatthews2,  I take the school comment back, it didn't make much sense anyway. I hadn't realized World Daw 3 was going on in here.

 

 

 

Comment Please sign in or sign up to post