| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! 22:01 - Aug 7 with 2228 views | Koppite |
Let me make this perfectly clear before we go any further!
This post is most certainly not an attack on BSA, It's chairman, committee or membership!
But surely it's Time!
20' after that very telling & quite sad José Riga interview it's time for BSA membership to vote on breaking official ties with BFC & return to being an independent voice of the fans once again!
Don't you see how BSA remaining tied to Oyston's/BFC is in fact a major hindrance rather than a help to the vast majority of Blackpool Supporters.
We as supporters really need to be 100% unified in the fight for a brighter future at BFC.
"Up The Pool" |  |
| "What Goes Around Comes Around " & Oyston Will Get What He's Due! |
| |  |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 22:27 - Aug 7 with 2194 views | basilrobbiereborn |
I like the place they currently occupy. Can I join twice?  |  |
| |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 23:02 - Aug 7 with 2162 views | Koppite |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 22:27 - Aug 7 by basilrobbiereborn |
I like the place they currently occupy. Can I join twice? |
You really are a prick of the highest order brb! | |
| "What Goes Around Comes Around " & Oyston Will Get What He's Due! |
| |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 01:53 - Aug 8 with 2142 views | terminallytangerine |
I respect your passion and right to make a choice for yourself Koppite but not to make this for other people.
I always think it is ironic that those who lambast BSA for not being independent want to take their independence away from them and make them follow another organisations methods.
Although we all share the same passion, frustration and desire for a better future it doesn't follow that we all want to spend our Saturday afternoons shouting abuse at the Oystons rather than watching football and doing what we can to lift the team, and actually enjoy the experience. I believe that that is what most people want and most people don't join a supporters' organisation.Most people on a Saturday afternoon actually want to put football first.
I don't accept that BSA is 'tied' in the sense that they can't think independently or are controlled by the chairman - they arent' - but an organisation committed to dialogue as the only way forward offer something to Blackpool supporters which we otherwise wouldn't have.
So personally I don't believe it is time for a one off dramatic gesture which is by its nature is one off, irreversible and would, in my view, achieve nothing.
There is room for more than one supporters' organisation and no reason why they cannot exist without acrimony (or hegemony.) | | | |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 06:32 - Aug 8 with 2118 views | realistic |
''spend our Saturday afternoons shouting abuse at the Oystons rather than watching football''
But koppite never said that, so why are you lying terminally tangerine? | |
| |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 07:54 - Aug 8 with 2094 views | Rusty2Stands |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 06:32 - Aug 8 by realistic |
''spend our Saturday afternoons shouting abuse at the Oystons rather than watching football''
But koppite never said that, so why are you lying terminally tangerine? |
BSA are in terminal decline. A bit like this message board. | | | |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 11:00 - Aug 8 with 2063 views | terminallytangerine |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 06:32 - Aug 8 by realistic |
''spend our Saturday afternoons shouting abuse at the Oystons rather than watching football''
But koppite never said that, so why are you lying terminally tangerine? |
Not lying Realistic - just being realistic and stating a personal preference.
I think the Burnley game was an example of where abuse was given a priority.
Some thought this was a great example of media manipulation.
I personally thought it was a distraction which prevented us getting a point in a vital game (though the substitutions didn't help!)
On another note I think you'll findBSA is alive and well, and likely to be around for the long haul. | | | |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 11:20 - Aug 8 with 2058 views | Seasidepete |
BSA, SISA, BST is just to many.
The problem being that BSA was not vocal enough and was slow to reflect the growing concerns of fans. It gives the impression that it has Karls ear and I'm guessing that in order to remain in this position felt it couldn't be too critical.
This left the door wide open for SISA and then BST
It now looks more like an intermediatory between the Chairman and the fans and therefore setting itself up to be shot at.
The answer is to unite and become accountable to the fans that contribute. Who cares what its called.
Never going to happen though is it. |  | | |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 11:53 - Aug 8 with 2046 views | terminallytangerine |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 11:20 - Aug 8 by Seasidepete |
BSA, SISA, BST is just to many.
The problem being that BSA was not vocal enough and was slow to reflect the growing concerns of fans. It gives the impression that it has Karls ear and I'm guessing that in order to remain in this position felt it couldn't be too critical.
This left the door wide open for SISA and then BST
It now looks more like an intermediatory between the Chairman and the fans and therefore setting itself up to be shot at.
The answer is to unite and become accountable to the fans that contribute. Who cares what its called.
Never going to happen though is it. |
I think there is some truth in your analysis about the rise of SISA and BST.
But as I see it BSA by its nature is an organisation committed to dialogue as a way of giving the fans a voice (never 'the' voice) and this inevitably means having a dialogue - often a critical dialogue - with the owners and working to make this possible for as many members as possible.
Asking BSA to stop talking to the owners would be like asking the Mersey ferry to stop running boat trips: it's part of their articles of foundation as an organisation.
To say that it is an intermediary between the chairman and the fans ignores the fact that BSA members are as much fans as anyone else.
Those who don't want dialogue to continue - surely as much an approach to effect change as any of the other methods tried by others - choose two contradictory arguments to support this view: no BSA would mean KO would have to speak directly to BST (would he?) or that supporters shouldn't talk to him (or have the opportunity to openly question his views) because this would isolate him and drive him further away.
In my view there is room for more than one organisation because people have different views, favour different approaches and want to adopt different methods. At the time of the PI sacking BSA opposed unequivocally protests within the stadium and although this view may be unpopular on the forums now it is a view shared by many supporters who want to put the football first, and leave the politics for a different place. For me Wigan was a much better experience than Burnley though I don't underestimate the strength of feelings and justified frustrations of supporters.
The recent supporters' summit had two organisations perfectly happy to work in harmony - Supporters Direct and Football Supporters Federationn- because like Blackpool supporters they have more that unites them than divides them. I see no reason why different supporters organisations shouldn't coexist particularly now when we all want some stability on and off the field. Now is not the time to make a one off dramatic gesture that would disenfranchise some supporters who both believe in dialogue and appreciate all those apolitical things which BSA has done so successfully for the last 12 years.
(Damn BRB for this new forum! I only came on here to get some exiles' football news and have allowed myself to get drawn into a long winded explanation which most people have heard already and which in the end comes down to my opinion. On this new site at least though it seems - so far - that issues can be discussed rather than diverse opinions being rejected out of hand.)
P.S. Wouldn't a separate politics subsection of the forums help to keep these debates away from the specific football related discussions?) [Post edited 8 Aug 2014 11:55]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 12:28 - Aug 8 with 2029 views | Seasidepete |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 11:53 - Aug 8 by terminallytangerine |
I think there is some truth in your analysis about the rise of SISA and BST.
But as I see it BSA by its nature is an organisation committed to dialogue as a way of giving the fans a voice (never 'the' voice) and this inevitably means having a dialogue - often a critical dialogue - with the owners and working to make this possible for as many members as possible.
Asking BSA to stop talking to the owners would be like asking the Mersey ferry to stop running boat trips: it's part of their articles of foundation as an organisation.
To say that it is an intermediary between the chairman and the fans ignores the fact that BSA members are as much fans as anyone else.
Those who don't want dialogue to continue - surely as much an approach to effect change as any of the other methods tried by others - choose two contradictory arguments to support this view: no BSA would mean KO would have to speak directly to BST (would he?) or that supporters shouldn't talk to him (or have the opportunity to openly question his views) because this would isolate him and drive him further away.
In my view there is room for more than one organisation because people have different views, favour different approaches and want to adopt different methods. At the time of the PI sacking BSA opposed unequivocally protests within the stadium and although this view may be unpopular on the forums now it is a view shared by many supporters who want to put the football first, and leave the politics for a different place. For me Wigan was a much better experience than Burnley though I don't underestimate the strength of feelings and justified frustrations of supporters.
The recent supporters' summit had two organisations perfectly happy to work in harmony - Supporters Direct and Football Supporters Federationn- because like Blackpool supporters they have more that unites them than divides them. I see no reason why different supporters organisations shouldn't coexist particularly now when we all want some stability on and off the field. Now is not the time to make a one off dramatic gesture that would disenfranchise some supporters who both believe in dialogue and appreciate all those apolitical things which BSA has done so successfully for the last 12 years.
(Damn BRB for this new forum! I only came on here to get some exiles' football news and have allowed myself to get drawn into a long winded explanation which most people have heard already and which in the end comes down to my opinion. On this new site at least though it seems - so far - that issues can be discussed rather than diverse opinions being rejected out of hand.)
P.S. Wouldn't a separate politics subsection of the forums help to keep these debates away from the specific football related discussions?) [Post edited 8 Aug 2014 11:55]
|
Great response
I think we all know where the real problem lies.
Good cop, Bad cop and Legal cop might work!
Better if we're sitting on the same side of the table though | | | |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 12:47 - Aug 8 with 2021 views | Seasider53 |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 12:28 - Aug 8 by Seasidepete |
Great response
I think we all know where the real problem lies.
Good cop, Bad cop and Legal cop might work!
Better if we're sitting on the same side of the table though |
Its my understanding that BST are willing to have a dialogue with BSA , but BSA refuse to speak to BST. Could someone explain the BSA reasoning ? | | | |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 13:01 - Aug 8 with 2013 views | basilrobbiereborn |
I was being facetious with my opening post, but there is a serious point underlying it.
i think most people want BST to take a bigger and more formal role in the way the club is run. But at the moment, that is a long way off because they don't even have a dialogue with the chairman.
Someone has to represent supporter views/concerns to him, and at the moment BSA are the only group able to fulfil that role. And well placed to make the point that support for BST transcends the previous split between BSA and SISA. So I think they continue to be very significant players in all this.
For the record, I'm not a member of BSA and never have been. | |
| |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 13:03 - Aug 8 with 2011 views | Hannibal_de_Seaside |
Any evidence for that assertion K? |  | | |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 13:11 - Aug 8 with 2003 views | realistic |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 11:00 - Aug 8 by terminallytangerine |
Not lying Realistic - just being realistic and stating a personal preference.
I think the Burnley game was an example of where abuse was given a priority.
Some thought this was a great example of media manipulation.
I personally thought it was a distraction which prevented us getting a point in a vital game (though the substitutions didn't help!)
On another note I think you'll findBSA is alive and well, and likely to be around for the long haul. |
terminally tangerine, I thought your reply was to the opening poster koppite?
On that basis, I was wondering why you implied he and others want to spend a saturday afternoon shouting abuse at the Oystons?
I'm pretty sure NOBODY wants or pays money to spend 90 minutes solely abusing the owners, they'd much rather be watching their team and forward thinking owned club progress!
Do the ones who apologise for the Oyston family ever sit back and think WHY people are frustrated with them?
I've actually noted that many who voice their dissaproval of the Oyston family, are equally as vocal when supporting the team!
Do people not understand that wanting the Club to be successful and progress, IS supporting the team?
It's all rather ironic and funny really, many who apologise for the Oyston family used to bait posters as to why they don't do something about them then?
The minute vast numbers did, they started squawking that it shouldn't be done at the match!
Not sure about your last paragraph though, I've not stated BSA is dead or a busted flush, although I think the close links with the Oyston family, snubbing of SISA, BST and your chairman openly mocking a SISA meeting has done you no favours at all.
I wonder if you yourself terminally tangerine, were one of the 9 committee members of BSA who voted AGAINST working or even having any dialogue with SISA, shame on you if you were and those bizarre action go directly against your own manifesto and rhetoric you spout on here. | |
| |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 13:39 - Aug 8 with 1984 views | terminallytangerine |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 12:47 - Aug 8 by Seasider53 |
Its my understanding that BST are willing to have a dialogue with BSA , but BSA refuse to speak to BST. Could someone explain the BSA reasoning ? |
Well I'm a BSA member and I'll talk to anyone. In fact I enjoyed the day with the two BST members at the Supporters Trust and we got along fine: as Blackpool supporters we do actually have a great deal in common.
This is a relationship which can develop provided it is based on mutual respect rather than the swallowing up of one organisation by another. The oft repeated mantra that BSA always votes unanimously against talking to SISA was never true in my experience - apart from the rejection of whistle blowing in the stadium at the time of the PI sacking. It should be said though that BSA has been the subject of constant attack on message boards by people who claim to be SISA members and even face to face confrontations at Blackburn and Leeds by people who have found BSA an easy scapegoat. This is not to tar the leadership who I think have made great progress in a short space of time and can be trusted to act responsibly, but as an organisation whose membership may decide to become a full scale organisation for regime change (not on our agenda: BSA will try to work with the owners whoever they are) and whose policies they are committed to following even if it leads to this, BSA are right to be cautious. BST may in any case decide they don't need to talk to BSA anyway. And it should be said that there is more to BSA than the politics.
In the meantime BSA and BST members will happily talk to each other whenever they meet - sometimes talking to themselves if they are members of both organisations - and there is no reason why this shouldn't be a healthy relationship like that which exists between SD and FSF. Personally I like the statement of understanding approach that exists between these two supporters' organisations.
Personal opinions of course rather than any official BSA statement, but good to talk. | | | |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 13:54 - Aug 8 with 1972 views | Seasider53 |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 13:39 - Aug 8 by terminallytangerine |
Well I'm a BSA member and I'll talk to anyone. In fact I enjoyed the day with the two BST members at the Supporters Trust and we got along fine: as Blackpool supporters we do actually have a great deal in common.
This is a relationship which can develop provided it is based on mutual respect rather than the swallowing up of one organisation by another. The oft repeated mantra that BSA always votes unanimously against talking to SISA was never true in my experience - apart from the rejection of whistle blowing in the stadium at the time of the PI sacking. It should be said though that BSA has been the subject of constant attack on message boards by people who claim to be SISA members and even face to face confrontations at Blackburn and Leeds by people who have found BSA an easy scapegoat. This is not to tar the leadership who I think have made great progress in a short space of time and can be trusted to act responsibly, but as an organisation whose membership may decide to become a full scale organisation for regime change (not on our agenda: BSA will try to work with the owners whoever they are) and whose policies they are committed to following even if it leads to this, BSA are right to be cautious. BST may in any case decide they don't need to talk to BSA anyway. And it should be said that there is more to BSA than the politics.
In the meantime BSA and BST members will happily talk to each other whenever they meet - sometimes talking to themselves if they are members of both organisations - and there is no reason why this shouldn't be a healthy relationship like that which exists between SD and FSF. Personally I like the statement of understanding approach that exists between these two supporters' organisations.
Personal opinions of course rather than any official BSA statement, but good to talk. |
TT I support your comments..... I am sure most BSA and BST members would talk to each other and have the same objectives which is the success of the club.
Its my understanding that its the BSA committees policy is not to speak to BST . Or it may have been SISA . Has this carried over to BST ? what is their policy ?
Does anyone know ? | | | |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 13:57 - Aug 8 with 1971 views | terminallytangerine |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 13:11 - Aug 8 by realistic |
terminally tangerine, I thought your reply was to the opening poster koppite?
On that basis, I was wondering why you implied he and others want to spend a saturday afternoon shouting abuse at the Oystons?
I'm pretty sure NOBODY wants or pays money to spend 90 minutes solely abusing the owners, they'd much rather be watching their team and forward thinking owned club progress!
Do the ones who apologise for the Oyston family ever sit back and think WHY people are frustrated with them?
I've actually noted that many who voice their dissaproval of the Oyston family, are equally as vocal when supporting the team!
Do people not understand that wanting the Club to be successful and progress, IS supporting the team?
It's all rather ironic and funny really, many who apologise for the Oyston family used to bait posters as to why they don't do something about them then?
The minute vast numbers did, they started squawking that it shouldn't be done at the match!
Not sure about your last paragraph though, I've not stated BSA is dead or a busted flush, although I think the close links with the Oyston family, snubbing of SISA, BST and your chairman openly mocking a SISA meeting has done you no favours at all.
I wonder if you yourself terminally tangerine, were one of the 9 committee members of BSA who voted AGAINST working or even having any dialogue with SISA, shame on you if you were and those bizarre action go directly against your own manifesto and rhetoric you spout on here. |
Just read yours realistic while writing another novel so will try to be brief.
I don't see myself as an Oyston apologist but think realism dictates that we engage in dialogue with him. I don't think the statements in the press criticising KO or our letters sound much like the language of an apologist.
I think the Burnley game was a case in point where some people were more prepared to abuse rather than support. Because I understand and empathise with the anger and frustrations of fellow supporters, doesn't mean that I think this is the best course of action during a game.
I'm not here to defend the indefensible: whether KO's or GB's but as I wasn't at the meeting I can't make a judgement about their actions or get inside their minds to read their intentions. On balance though I think GB has led the organisation well and doesn't deserve the unnecessary abuse he gets from people who don't know him. Like you - like me - he bleeds tangerine.
Not squawking or spouting rhetoric at all: just trying to have an honest dialogue. | | | |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 14:14 - Aug 8 with 1961 views | realistic |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 13:57 - Aug 8 by terminallytangerine |
Just read yours realistic while writing another novel so will try to be brief.
I don't see myself as an Oyston apologist but think realism dictates that we engage in dialogue with him. I don't think the statements in the press criticising KO or our letters sound much like the language of an apologist.
I think the Burnley game was a case in point where some people were more prepared to abuse rather than support. Because I understand and empathise with the anger and frustrations of fellow supporters, doesn't mean that I think this is the best course of action during a game.
I'm not here to defend the indefensible: whether KO's or GB's but as I wasn't at the meeting I can't make a judgement about their actions or get inside their minds to read their intentions. On balance though I think GB has led the organisation well and doesn't deserve the unnecessary abuse he gets from people who don't know him. Like you - like me - he bleeds tangerine.
Not squawking or spouting rhetoric at all: just trying to have an honest dialogue. |
Fair points and the term apologist is only aimed at the actions of individuals or a group, which give me cause for concern, such as 9 committee members voting NOT to have dialogue with a fellow supporters group and the chairman of BSA openly mocking at a SISA meeting, with Karl Oyston.
Add that together with calculated letters/statements, staunch bordering on paranoid and guilt ridden defence of all things BSA, lack of damning critisicm in a timely and frequent fashion of all aspects of the Oyston tenure ... Probably goes a long way to explaning and justifying why BSA have so many people being critical of the organisation you are a member of.
I doubt you'd ever break ranks and be critical of BSA, so that's fair enough, but you don't have to be a genius to work out that the chairman of BSA laughing and openly mocking a SISA meeting with Karl Oyston was ill judged, crass and inexcusable.
After that well documented episode, is it little wonder the recent jolly to Poland was questioned along with all the other questionable behaviour? [Post edited 8 Aug 2014 14:26]
| |
| |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 14:31 - Aug 8 with 1950 views | we_are_Superior |
Firstly if there was a reason to leave the old AVFTT it's so that we can see that Avatar!
Secondly I think if BSA are true to their roots then arranging coach travel and events should be what they should stick to. Involving them in club decisions is a nasty tactic from KO to deflect some of the criticism aimed at him. | |
| |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 14:41 - Aug 8 with 1938 views | Rusty2Stands |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 14:14 - Aug 8 by realistic |
Fair points and the term apologist is only aimed at the actions of individuals or a group, which give me cause for concern, such as 9 committee members voting NOT to have dialogue with a fellow supporters group and the chairman of BSA openly mocking at a SISA meeting, with Karl Oyston.
Add that together with calculated letters/statements, staunch bordering on paranoid and guilt ridden defence of all things BSA, lack of damning critisicm in a timely and frequent fashion of all aspects of the Oyston tenure ... Probably goes a long way to explaning and justifying why BSA have so many people being critical of the organisation you are a member of.
I doubt you'd ever break ranks and be critical of BSA, so that's fair enough, but you don't have to be a genius to work out that the chairman of BSA laughing and openly mocking a SISA meeting with Karl Oyston was ill judged, crass and inexcusable.
After that well documented episode, is it little wonder the recent jolly to Poland was questioned along with all the other questionable behaviour? [Post edited 8 Aug 2014 14:26]
|
the chairman of BSA laughing and openly mocking a SISA meeting with Karl Oyston was ill judged, crass and inexcusable.
I bet neither of them will be doing that again soon. If they tried that now at a BST meeting, it's doubtful they'd get out alive.
At the time Koko probably thought SISA was just a 'here today gone tomorrow' organisation, which wasn't capable of causing him any problems.
How wrong could he have been?
I bet the arrogant clown isn't giggling about BST now. | | | |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 18:26 - Aug 8 with 1899 views | terminallytangerine |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 14:14 - Aug 8 by realistic |
Fair points and the term apologist is only aimed at the actions of individuals or a group, which give me cause for concern, such as 9 committee members voting NOT to have dialogue with a fellow supporters group and the chairman of BSA openly mocking at a SISA meeting, with Karl Oyston.
Add that together with calculated letters/statements, staunch bordering on paranoid and guilt ridden defence of all things BSA, lack of damning critisicm in a timely and frequent fashion of all aspects of the Oyston tenure ... Probably goes a long way to explaning and justifying why BSA have so many people being critical of the organisation you are a member of.
I doubt you'd ever break ranks and be critical of BSA, so that's fair enough, but you don't have to be a genius to work out that the chairman of BSA laughing and openly mocking a SISA meeting with Karl Oyston was ill judged, crass and inexcusable.
After that well documented episode, is it little wonder the recent jolly to Poland was questioned along with all the other questionable behaviour? [Post edited 8 Aug 2014 14:26]
|
Honest opinion rather than 'staunch bordering on paranoid and guilt ridden defence of all things BSA' - honest.
I genuinely don't think BSA as an organisation has anything to be feel guilty about and on balance has done a lot more good over the last 12 years than harm. Long may they continue to do so.
If the visit of GB/KO to the open meeting arranged by SISA was as you say then I think it was wrong but as I said I wasn't there to witness it - and I wonder if the people who have posted on this thread were as well. I've already answered the not talking to SISA point.
Challenging unfounded prejudice has nothing to do with closing ranks or being blindly uncritical.
I'm sure you'll forgive me for leaving this thread there but we do seem to be going round in circles, and there are more interesting threads.. | | | |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 18:33 - Aug 8 with 1894 views | realistic |
| BSA Membership.....Surely It's Time! on 18:26 - Aug 8 by terminallytangerine |
Honest opinion rather than 'staunch bordering on paranoid and guilt ridden defence of all things BSA' - honest.
I genuinely don't think BSA as an organisation has anything to be feel guilty about and on balance has done a lot more good over the last 12 years than harm. Long may they continue to do so.
If the visit of GB/KO to the open meeting arranged by SISA was as you say then I think it was wrong but as I said I wasn't there to witness it - and I wonder if the people who have posted on this thread were as well. I've already answered the not talking to SISA point.
Challenging unfounded prejudice has nothing to do with closing ranks or being blindly uncritical.
I'm sure you'll forgive me for leaving this thread there but we do seem to be going round in circles, and there are more interesting threads.. |
No problem at all with leaving the debate, I think most of what has been posted is inexcusable anyway, and it would be silly to argue against, and it is well documented that the chairman of BSA turned up with Karl Oyston to a SISA meeting, you didn't have to be there to know that.
I was of the understanding 9 committee members of BSA voted against any dialogue with SISA and as it stands aren't in dialogue formally or in partnership with BST ?
No doubt BSA have done many good things over the years, so lets be very clear on that ... but of late, and the recent behaviour has been alarming.
Surely if the mindset and manifesto is as you say it is and indeed as the manifesto is in balck and white, the BSA would be keen to work and enage with SISA previously and now BST.
I suppose time will tell. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
