Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 41

Thread: BVF Constitution

  1. #21
    Forum Rabbit
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2

    Default Silvia J

    Quote Originally Posted by hokers View Post
    To clarify when I said "Why should anyone care about this?" I was meaning care enough to take BVF to court and be able to demonstrate loss of earnings etc.
    Graham has described a scenario since that would do it, personal distress about non-selection. I guess some of the thinking about not following the rules might have been related to not seeing anyone being concerned about them being followed to the letter to care, but I can see the point now. Sounds like this needs fixing to me.
    I care too. I am not considering specific examples like the one above but the simple fact that I think it is important that the Constitution of the Veterans should be adhered to. I am very conscious of the legality of the situation and applaud Graham for his resignation in the circumstances.

    I am also conscious of the committee protocols which seem absurd: I once asked a Committee Member about something and was told that they could not discuss it because they were on the Committee. I had not considered the matter particularly controversial - but it was clear there could be no discussion.

    I think it most regrettable that the Veterans, once a friendly organisation, which I have been proud to be part of, is no longer operating with the aims and objectives it used to have.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    280

    Default

    Welcome Chris, I was quite worried about you not reacting to my post for so long. Usually you are the first to attack. Is age slowing you down?
    Quote Originally Posted by cesh_fencing View Post
    All of this is very one sided as BVF will generally not officially comment on the Forum.
    Correct and that is symptomatic of problem with the committee. It is like a secret society. Committee members are not talk to mere members. There is a hierarchy within the committee. I as a mere ordinary member was not supposed to comment publically on International fencing without getting permission from the INTERNATIONAL FENCING OFFICER, and could not comment on domestic fencing without consulting with the DOMESTIC FENCING OFFICER. (I have the emails of complaint to prove it)
    Quote Originally Posted by cesh_fencing View Post
    I would expect that the BVF committee will have sought confirmation that they have acted as required.
    .
    So would I, but the sad truth is that either no advice was sought, or if it was, the wrong person was consulted and it was certainly not a practicing lawyer. The committee are being led into a situation which could end up costing each of them personally tens of thousands of pounds. I do not have that sort of money to throw away, which is one reason why I resigned.

  3. #23
    Senior Member ChrisHeaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lytham
    Posts
    605

    Default

    I have to say that as a BVF member this all strikes me as very bizarre. Why would somebody go as far as taking BVF to court over something like not being selected for a veterans fencing competition? Talk about a fragile ego!

    And why would somebody potentially ruin the organisation and the lives of people who have volunteered to further that organisation by pursuing a costly court case? Is such a scenario realistic? I hardly think so.

    But anyhow the AGM should be entertaining this year. I might even turn up for once!

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisHeaps View Post
    I have to say that as a BVF member this all strikes me as very bizarre. Why would somebody go as far as taking BVF to court over something like not being selected for a veterans fencing competition? Talk about a fragile ego!
    I can assure you that there were lawyers consulted last year over selection issues. In that case there was no certainity of success if a legal process was followed.
    In this instance, as Hokers has so eloquently demonstrated, the case is pretty much open and shut. The vote at the AGM was illegal and the new constitution is invalid. This means that any challenge to a it would be pretty certain of succes and hence any committee appointed under the new constitution would not be legal.
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisHeaps View Post
    And why would somebody potentially ruin the organisation and the lives of people who have volunteered to further that organisation by pursuing a costly court case? Is such a scenario realistic? I hardly think so.
    If a person reconises the above, then they may well decide that it is better and cheaper, to sort out now rather than to wait until after an illegal AGM. (The costs of a second AGM would fall personally on the committee members).
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisHeaps View Post
    But anyhow the AGM should be entertaining this year. I might even turn up for onc!
    Every cloud has a silver lining?

  5. #25
    Cthulhu fhtagn! Duncan Rowlands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Gateshead / Laszlo's
    Posts
    844

    Default

    At the EGM held in Dudley on 23 March 2018 the membership voted to adopt a new constitution for BVF. This constitution varied in a few respects from the version that was circulated to the membership before the meeting.

    The adoption of the new constitution has been challenged on the basis that the amendments that were made to the initial version of the constitution presented at the EGM had not been notified to the membership at least twenty-one days prior to the EGM, as required by section 19 of the BVF constitution that was in force at the start of the EGM.

    This provision was intended to prevent substantial amendments being made at a meeting that significantly altered the terms of an original proposal that had been circulated to the membership. It was not intended to prevent minor corrections and clarifications to be made that did not alter the practical impact of the original proposal in a significant manner.

    For example, all references to 'Chairman' in the original proposal were amended to 'Chair' at the EGM. No one has suggested that this was a significant change that would justify setting aside the new constitution adopted at the EGM.

    This has demonstrated that there simply being an amendment to the original proposal made at the EGM is insufficient to set aside the new constitution. Instead, such an amendment must have a significant impact on the application of the original proposal in order to justify setting aside the new constitution.

    In committee, two amendments were put forward for detailed consideration, being the amendments to sections 3.c and 6.a. The BVF committee discussed these amendments in detail at our meeting on 15 April 2018 and concluded that they were not sufficiently significant to justify setting aside the new constitution. The reasons for this conclusion are detailed below:

    Section 3.c
    The purpose of this section is to confirm that members of BVF are subject to the BF Disciplinary and Grievance Code. This is already provided for in section 1.1 of the Code, and the inclusion of section 3.c in the proposed constitution was simply for confirmation.

    The original proposal put to the EGM was:
    "Members of BVF are subject to the BF disciplinary code and can be referred to the BF Disciplinary Committee. Any offensive behaviour, including (without limitation) racist, sexist, or inflammatory remarks or actions that breach current BF and BVF rules, protocols and/or policies, may be referred by the Committee Chairman for action under that code. Any BVF member who is not a BF member may be referred to an internal Disciplinary Committee as detailed by the Committee Chairman."

    This was amended to:
    " Members of BVF are subject to the BF disciplinary code and can be referred to the BF Disciplinary Committee."

    As can be seen, the amendment retains the first sentence of the original proposal, and removes the subsequent two sentences. The EGM considered that these sentences did not add anything of practical purpose to the intent of the section, and could possibly cause confusion.

    The impact of the amendment is absolutely nothing for members of BVF who are also members of BF. This is intended to be all members of BVF, as section 3.a.ii of the new constitution (both the original proposal and the adopted version) states, "All persons admitted as a member of BVF are also expected to be a member of British Fencing ..."

    Therefore, the amendment should not actually impact any member of BVF at all, and serves only to simplify the text and avoid any potential confusion.

    The Committee considered at its meeting on 15 April 2018 that the amendment was not sufficiently significant in its impact to justify setting aside the new constitution.

    Section 6.a
    The purpose of this section is to enable the Committee to bring urgent business to the membership and for the membership to be able to challenge the Committee.

    The original proposal put to the EGM was:
    "An EGM shall be called by the Secretary within 10 days of a request in writing to that effect from the Committee or on the written request of not less than 20 current BVF members."

    This was amended to:
    "An EGM shall be called by the Secretary within 10 days of a request in writing to that effect from the Committee or on the written request of not less than 10 current BVF members."

    As can be seen, the only alteration was to reduce the minimum number of BVF members required to call an EGM from 20 to 10. This is the same number that was required under the equivalent provision in the old constitution (section 14).

    This amendment's only impact is to make it easier for the membership to challenge the Committee.

    The Committee considered at its meeting on 15 April 2018 that this amendment was not sufficiently significant to set aside the new constitution, particularly as if it was set aside this particular provision would be replaced with an effectively identical provision. It would be throwing out a provision enabling 10 members to call an EGM and replacing it with a provision enabling 10 members to call an EGM.

    I trust that the above explains why the Committee at its meeting on 15 April 2018 concluded that these two amendments were not sufficiently significant to set aside the new constitution. To do so would be disproportionate to the importance of these two minor amendments and would frustrate the democratically expressed will of over two-thirds of the members present at the EGM to introduce a modernised constitution providing much greater access to the democratic process without good cause.
    "I do not have to forgive my enemies. I have had them all shot." - Ramon Maria Narvaez

    "Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" - HP Lovecraft

  6. #26
    Cthulhu fhtagn! Duncan Rowlands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Gateshead / Laszlo's
    Posts
    844

    Default Amendments to the BVF Constitution

    John Mason has asked me to post the following link to a document on the BVF website that details exactly all the changes to the initially proposed constitution that were made at the EGM.

    https://www.veterans-fencing.co.uk/d...ges-at-egm.pdf

    If the link doesn't work please copy and paste into your browser.
    "I do not have to forgive my enemies. I have had them all shot." - Ramon Maria Narvaez

    "Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" - HP Lovecraft

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Lancashire/London
    Posts
    413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duncan Rowlands View Post
    John Mason has asked me to post the following link to a document on the BVF website that details exactly all the changes to the initially proposed constitution that were made at the EGM.

    https://www.veterans-fencing.co.uk/d...ges-at-egm.pdf

    If the link doesn't work please copy and paste into your browser.
    Itís a bit late now Duncan!
    Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.
    Winston Churchill

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander View Post
    Itís a bit late now Duncan!
    Not only late but, IMHO, wrong.
    Change of constitution of an unincorporated association, such as BVF, is analogous to that of a limited company. It is an exceptional circumstance requiring special notice. Established case law in relation to special notices and companies, and by analogy to unincorporated associations, makes it quite clear that to be valid the resolution must be the same in form and substance as that of which the text had been circulated in the notice. There is no room for the application of any de minimis principle. So, for example, ďa resolution to reduce the share premium account of a company to £321 could not even be deemed to be the same as a resolution to reduce it to £320Ē. The Committee, as I understand it, chose to ignore not only my advice but that of Tom Cadman, BF's solicitor. He wrote this to the Chairman: " it is not possible to make substantial amendments to a proposed draft Constitution at a meeting itself." In this instance "substantial" means "of substance".
    Where did the Committee get its advice?

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff Silverman View Post
    Not only late but, IMHO, wrong.
    Where did the Committee get its advice?
    This was the question I asked at the last committee meeting and in my email resigning if I did not get a satisfactory answer.
    At the committee meeting the only answer was a 'retired solicitor'. All other details on the facts put to this alleged lawyer or the actual advice, were denied to me. The wording of Duncan's justification were the same as produced at the committee meeting, hence ir would appear no further advice has been taken. I find this difficult to believe. It seems to be happening because some people believe their chances of re-election are enhanced by electronic voting.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Lancashire/London
    Posts
    413

    Default

    [QUOTE=graham paul;322485 I find this difficult to believe. It seems to be happening because some people believe their chances of re-election are enhanced by electronic voting.[/QUOTE]

    Well, I think their chances of getting re-elected are zero now!

    The obvious disregard for process and procedures and the secrecy added to committee members being told what they can and canít say to individuals is despotic and not something a committee of a sporting membership should be engaged in.

    I personally have experience of this, I asked for details of a Meeting about me and this has been refused by the committee, even after I asked for it specifically theough a Subject Access Request under the data protection act.
    For the sake of not costing the membership money it didnt have, I did not take legal action to get this Information about me and I let it go. The whole story leading up to this request took over 3 months and cost me hundreds of pounds and nearly made me give up vets Fencing.

    I hoped the situation would change but it appears to be getting worse.

    Jeff
    Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.
    Winston Churchill

  11. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    It seems to be happening because some people believe their chances of re-election are enhanced by electronic voting.
    This statement is WRONG. You can¬ít make insinuations about committee members like that. ¬ďSome people¬Ē means a significant portion of the committee. A statement like that is just petty and malicious. Is there competition for committee places? NO and there never has been.

    Electronic voting is in the new constitution because the governing body, British Fencing, use it.

  12. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander View Post
    Well, I think their chances of getting re-elected are zero now!
    I have been Membership Sec for maybe 20 years, Treasurer for 14 years and Webmaster for 20+ years. I said a year ago that I do not wish to stand for Membership or Treasurer again. I could also pass on all the Web and software stuff. If you think you can do it better then fine, I am fed up with all the negative criticism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander View Post

    The obvious disregard for process and procedures ...
    This is just plain WRONG and misrepresentation of the committee.

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander View Post

    I personally have experience of this, I asked for details of a Meeting about me and this has been refused by the committee, even after I asked for it specifically theough a Subject Access Request under the data protection act.
    For the sake of not costing the membership money it didnt have, I did not take legal action to get this Information about me and I let it go. The whole story leading up to this request took over 3 months and cost me hundreds of pounds and nearly made me give up vets Fencing.
    I have never understood your position on this. You wasted a lot of the committee's time on gathering information that you never used and YOU WENT TO THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS. You didn't lose anything so what possible motive did you have apart from causing us trouble?

  13. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    280

    Default

    Originally Posted by graham paul It seems to be happening (referring to bringing in new constitution as a matter of urgency) because some people believe their chances of re-election are enhanced by electronic voting.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Mason View Post
    This statement is WRONG. You canít make insinuations about committee members like that. .
    John,
    Maybe you have forgotten that at the EGM when the chair was asked why the new constitution was being rushed in rather than waiting for the AGM. She said that it was to bring in a fairer voting system to use at the AGM. She had previously stated that she was concerned that the old system might result in her not being re-elected. It is not unreasonable to think that others on the committee shared her views and were keen to bring in the new constitution before the AGM for the same reason.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mason View Post
    . Electronic voting is in the new constitution because the governing body, British Fencing, use it.
    This statment is plainly WRONG. To my knowledge at no time was this suggested to be the reason for bringing in electronic voting at any commiittee meeting over the past year. If this was the reason, why the urgency to get it aproved before the AGM?

  14. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post

    ... She said that it was to bring in a fairer voting system to use at the AGM.
    Agreed, this is what she said.



    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post

    She had previously stated that she was concerned that the old system might result in her not being re-elected.
    I have NEVER heard her say this either in private or public conversation.

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    It is not unreasonable to think that others on the committee shared her views and were keen to bring in the new constitution before the AGM for the same reason.
    It is VERY unreasonable to make an incorrect claim against one member of the committee and then spread the suspicion in this way. I expect that people will think that as a committee insider you are aware of what is happening and you are dishing the dirt like an old News of the World reporter.. This is what makes you such a difficult person to work with, inferring improprieties here, maladministration there and pushing it out on social media. The committee members are honorable people. They do not deserve such treatment and such disloyalty.

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post

    ... If this was the reason, why the urgency to get it aproved before the AGM?
    Because the timetable enabled us to do so. The reasoning was why have a less fair system in place for another year. No conspiracy. No self interest, just a fairer system for the membership.

  15. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    280

    Default

    John,
    I am not going to get into a slanging match with you.

    However there is an important matter that I would like an answer to-
    You have now emailed the membership that the committee are going to seek independent advice on the validity of the EGM. The committee was warned from a number of sources as long ago as the 27th March that the vote on the new constitution was invalid, and were advised to seek independent legal advice. Why has it taken 5 weeks and 2 resignations, for the committee to reach the decision to seek advice? I find it incomprehensible and highly irresponsible that the advice was ignored for so long.

  16. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Lancashire/London
    Posts
    413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Mason View Post
    I have been Membership Sec for maybe 20 years, Treasurer for 14 years and Webmaster for 20+ years. I said a year ago that I do not wish to stand for Membership or Treasurer again. I could also pass on all the Web and software stuff. If you think you can do it better then fine, I am fed up with all the negative criticism.


    Answer
    John I have been vocal in my praise of what you have done for Vets fencing. Iím not and have not attacked you personally. If we are going to go forward with any Vets organisation at all, your expertise and time as web master and systems developer are crucial. I hope although you no longer wish to be on the committee, you would stay in your capacity as webmaster.


    John Quote:
    This is just plain WRONG and misrepresentation of the committee.


    Answer

    The whole committee may not be responsible for the decision not to follow the selection rules in my case. But someone on the committee must have been.

    A few points from the Selection debacle.

    During the appeal process, the detailed BVF Selection committeeís Discretionary process document was REMOVED from the BVF website.

    Why?

    The BVF appointed Selection committee was overruled by the Appeal panel and ultimately by the Chairman although the BVF appointed Selection committee acted completely within their published selection criteria.

    From the chairmanís letter to me explaining why I was now dropped from the team:
    ďThe Appeal Panel concluded, as it was empowered to do so, that the opinion of the Selectors was incorrect and that they did not act properly in exercising their discretionĒ.

    The Appeal Panel and the Chairman ignored the detailed Discretionary process that was published in advance of the selection events by the BVF Selection Committee and chose to adopt a different criterion (discretion) for selection. I was then replaced in the team for the World Championships.

    This was obviously contrary to process and procedure.


    After sending many emails to point out that process was not followed, I received an email saying: the Appeal Panel and the chairman had a potential conflict of interest in the selection process and the appeal had to be reheard by a different panel.

    The second appeal panel met and unanimously concluded that the BVF Selection committee had in fact acted correctly in selecting me. I was then reinstated to the team

    I took no Joy in this. I know the other fencer well and his treatment was appalling and My decision to fight for my outcome was party to this and it will never sit right with me. I had email traffic with the other fencer at the time and he acted thoughtfully when he replaced me and magnanimously when I replaced him even though we had completely different views.

    I was originally Picked, I told my family friends and colleagues, he then replaced me in the team. He booked flights and hotels and Iím sure would have told family friends and colleagues. He would then have to tell them, as I had to, he wasnít going to represent his country at the World Championships. All avoidable!

    ē Some Members of the BVF committee have not been permitted to see the details of this debacle. Is that right should we have a committee kept in the dark over such a big issue ? In fact, I know some of these members actually requested to see the details and were refused.

    ē The BVF appointed selection Committee who were overruled are not even permitted to see the final ruling proving they acted correctly in selecting me.


    ē No one from the BVF has ever apologised to me. In John fact you posted previously that you think Iím a trouble maker for ensuring correct process was followed, is this what the whole committee feels and is this how we want our committee to act?



    John Quote:
    I have never understood your position on this. You wasted a lot of the committee's time on gathering information that you never used and YOU WENT TO THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS. You didn't lose anything so what possible motive did you have apart from causing us trouble?]


    Answer
    Wasting the Committees time

    John, the committee still hasn't sent me the details of the second appeal, which was what I requested in the first place. The fact the committee decided to waste its time sending me a copy of everything I already had and omitting the one thing I asked for was their own doing.


    Answer
    I Didnít lose anything!!

    Well after the 3 months it took to get the committee to overturn its obviously wrong decision to overrule the selection committees detailed measured decision to select me. The price of flights and hotels had doubled. It cost me around £300-£400 more.
    The worst thing is the amount of time and effort and emotional stress it took me to get this error of process corrected. I also must shoulder the responsibility of how my decision to fight this affected a fellow fencer who just wanted to represent his country.
    My whole experience of the 2017 World Championships was tainted by this unnecessary drawn out process.
    I went to the World Championships because I would not let this go and despite the disturbing lack of proper process carried out by individuals on the BVF committee and their attempts to block me from ensuring they did. Those are the very people who should be there to ensure proper process and adherence to its own rules.


    Jeff Kiy
    Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.
    Winston Churchill

  17. #37
    Moderator Gav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    5,648

    Default

    I'm just going throw this out there....

    Airing your grievances [in public] like this is not a good look for those involved...

    Any chance of getting back to talking about fencing? Thanks.
    "Evil does not wear a bonnet!"
    "Thanks Ants ... Thants.


    It is forbidden to dream again;
    We maim our joys or hide them;

  18. #38
    Forum Rabbit
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2

    Default Silvia J

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    John,
    I am not going to get into a slanging match with you.

    However there is an important matter that I would like an answer to-
    You have now emailed the membership that the committee are going to seek independent advice on the validity of the EGM. The committee was warned from a number of sources as long ago as the 27th March that the vote on the new constitution was invalid, and were advised to seek independent legal advice. Why has it taken 5 weeks and 2 resignations, for the committee to reach the decision to seek advice? I find it incomprehensible and highly irresponsible that the advice was ignored for so long.

    Regarding procedure and protocol, I would like to add that my attention to detail was enhanced when I heard a Club secretary telling a short-socked sabreur he had to adhere to the Club rules. The secretary said that it didn't matter that the sabreur was prepared to risk his own legs. There might be an accident somewhere in the salle and the fact that there was one person who was not following the clothing regulations of the BF meant the Club insurance would be invalid, therefore the Club Secretary and Chairman would be liable, and he could lose his house.

    I am very sad that there are now two resignations from the committee, both long standing members whose contribution over the years has been great.

    If what Graham says is true, I think the membership is entitled to an answer. What possible justification is there for the delay?.

  19. #39
    ***** Legend hokers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Woking/Guildford
    Posts
    3,761

    Default

    Oh man this political infighting is distasteful.
    Suddenly it's obvious where the rule about committee members not posting about committee stuff on social media came from!

    In the meantime, the course of action is clear (IMO) and not that difficult.
    1. Reissue the amended constitution to the members.
    2. Call an EGM to ratify it between (today +21 days) and the AGM. I suggest making it on the same day and at the same venue as the AGM, but earlier in the day. No rules about gaps between the meetings.
    3. Make everyone who wants to vote but not attend provide a proxy vote for EGM and AGM. No-one has to travel twice.
    4. Profit.


    Process has been followed, membership can vote as expected.
    Everyone with insinuations of impropriety or concerns about future legal action can rest easier knowing the process has been followed.
    Anyone with historical, "I got treated badly" stuff has the opportunity to vote for someone else.
    ďLive a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.Ē

  20. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hokers View Post
    Oh man this political infighting is distasteful.
    Suddenly it's obvious where the rule about committee members not posting about committee stuff on social media came from!

    In the meantime, the course of action is clear (IMO) and not that difficult.
    1. Reissue the amended constitution to the members.
    2. Call an EGM to ratify it between (today +21 days) and the AGM. I suggest making it on the same day and at the same venue as the AGM, but earlier in the day. No rules about gaps between the meetings.
    3. Make everyone who wants to vote but not attend provide a proxy vote for EGM and AGM. No-one has to travel twice.
    4. Profit.


    Process has been followed, membership can vote as expected.
    Everyone with insinuations of impropriety or concerns about future legal action can rest easier knowing the process has been followed.
    Anyone with historical, "I got treated badly" stuff has the opportunity to vote for someone else.
    Finally.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •