Jump to content

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What are you on about? 
 

This has nothing to do with whether the BBC make anyone look good or bad. It’s 2020, people shouldn’t have to pay a poll tax regardless of whether they watch the  BBC or not. The biggest cheerleaders for saying how valuable the bbc is, or what a bargain it is, are the ones that don’t want that tested. It’s simple, if it’s as good as you make out, if it’s such great value, everybody will pay a subscription for it. 
 

It acts like a commercial media conglomerate, it should be subject to the same commercial pressures as everyone else. 

‘It’s  2020’ Said without irony no doubt. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Duckie said that the purpose of the BBC was to entertain. It is not just that. It’s purpose is to “inform, educate and entertain” which is precisely what it does. 
 

For those who are bleating about it being biased, I don’t recall you fretting over the hard time it gave Corbyn. I seem to remember too that it gave Blair a hard ride over the Iraqi war.

You would expect any news broadcasting service worth it salt to ask difficult questions of those in power. Those quibbling about the BBC at the moment would clearly like a BBC run like the Daily Mail. Thank God it isn’t.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Duckie said that the purpose of the BBC was to entertain. It is not just that. It’s purpose is to “inform, educate and entertain” which is precisely what it does. 
 

For those who are bleating about it being biased, I don’t recall you fretting over the hard time it gave Corbyn. I seem to remember too that it gave Blair a hard ride over the Iraqi war.

You would expect any news broadcasting service worth it salt to ask difficult questions of those in power. Those quibbling about the BBC at the moment would clearly like a BBC run like the Daily Mail. Thank God it isn’t.

You really don’t get it do you? 
 

I couldn’t care less whether it had exactly the same views as me, whether Newsnight was hosted by Nigel Farage & Rod Liddle. It’s the principle of paying  a poll tax  regardless whether you watch it or not, I object to. Its website crosses into areas that should be left to the commercial sector, it’s local radio kills commercial radio and its tv arm chase ratings. There isn’t much it does that isn’t available elsewhere. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/07/2020 at 17:29, Lord Duckhunter said:

You really don’t get it do you? 
 

I couldn’t care less whether it had exactly the same views as me, whether Newsnight was hosted by Nigel Farage & Rod Liddle. It’s the principle of paying  a poll tax  regardless whether you watch it or not, I object to. Its website crosses into areas that should be left to the commercial sector, it’s local radio kills commercial radio and its tv arm chase ratings. There isn’t much it does that isn’t available elsewhere. 

You'll be telling us next that "tax is theft." 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn’t a poll tax, it is a license fee.

We have just watched all three of the Salisbury Poisonings programmes. Wow. Quality programming that that the BBC have been producing for decades, all for less than the price of a pint a week.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It isn’t a poll tax, it is a license fee.

We have just watched all three of the Salisbury Poisonings programmes. Wow. Quality programming that that the BBC have been producing for decades, all for less than the price of a pint a week.

 

With a false story fed to them, no doubt, by the Conservative government. 

Biased. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/07/2020 at 17:07, Earthworm Jim said:

General knowledge he should be fine, more "In the News" or "Current Affairs" is where he'd struggle. 

Only according to the MSM propaganda machine, not in fact in terms of the real current affairs. People who believe all they read and hear from the MSM are very misinformed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

It isn’t a poll tax, it is a license fee.

We have just watched all three of the Salisbury Poisonings programmes. Wow. Quality programming that that the BBC have been producing for decades, all for less than the price of a pint a week.

 


If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. A poll tax is levied as a fixed sum on every liable individual. 
 

There you go again, if it’s as good as you make out, everyone will pay a subscription, so what’s your problem,.
 

Of course, YOU want the tv poll tax to remain, because YOU think it’s good value. I think the Spectator is great value for money. I think people should pay a poll tax to fund it, even if they only read the Guardian. Think of all the great articles they could write & all the correspondents they could send round the world. In return for the tax revenues they could have a charter making them legally be balanced & neutral. Don’t you think the print industry needs an impartial source of news and current affairs? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/07/2020 at 06:04, st.bangkok said:

Try this. Stop watching MSM. Turn off the news for a couple of weeks. Nothing they tell you is true, without bias or accurate. Since living in Thailand i never watch the news and my life thus is so much brighter as i never get to see their silly propaganda and lies. It is brainwashing. The TV has been brainwashing us all for 60+ years. Turn it off. Go outside, dare to live without being told how to think, what to say, and how to feel. 

Have you ever heard the saying 'ignorance is bliss'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC World Service English and BBC World News TV had a weekly audience of 426 million in 2019.

Bit of a nightmare trying to collect a subscription from that lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:


If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. A poll tax is levied as a fixed sum on every liable individual. 
 

There you go again, if it’s as good as you make out, everyone will pay a subscription, so what’s your problem,.
 

Of course, YOU want the tv poll tax to remain, because YOU think it’s good value. I think the Spectator is great value for money. I think people should pay a poll tax to fund it, even if they only read the Guardian. Think of all the great articles they could write & all the correspondents they could send round the world. In return for the tax revenues they could have a charter making them legally be balanced & neutral. Don’t you think the print industry needs an impartial source of news and current affairs? 

The BBC is a different animal, as you well know. It is unique and over the years it has delivered a lot of quality. I am sure plenty of people would pay for it but it probably wouldn’t get the same level of funding.

As an old git like me Duckie, I’m sure you have had your money’s worth over the years too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
19 minutes ago, Manuel said:

In/Out referendum on the BBC?  Yes please.  I vote out.  

I tolerate social justice warriors, as we all do, but resent having to give them my money.  

Of course you did. I think sane people would take the BBC over some absolutely biased version of Fox media....which is clearly what you're calling for. I seem to recall we fought against fascists in the war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Hockey_saint said:

Of course you did. I think sane people would take the BBC over some absolutely biased version of Fox media....which is clearly what you're calling for. I seem to recall we fought against fascists in the war.

Media without an agenda at all.  That's all I want.  If I can't get it then at least let me keep my money and make my own choices.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Manuel said:

Media without an agenda at all.  That's all I want.  If I can't get it then at least let me keep my money and make my own choices.  

Well you're not going to get it are you? The one being advertised is essentially a mix of Talk Sport and Fox which, whilst Talk Sport tries not to be, are both quite right wing. Besides, it's only usualy "really left" to those with right wing sensibilities. You will not get an "impartial" channel to replace it. All you will get is a mouthpiece of the current government that will be either very right wing or left.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about left/right regarding politics, particularly.  Athough the beeb does chop and change on that front, usually depending on proximity to an election, degrading its credibility (in favour of tories actually).  It's tough to get non-biased reporting but, again, if you're going to force your public to pay for media then you need to try a lot harder to achieve that, if that is your aim.  Their diversity agenda I do have issues with, regarding employment and programming.  It makes no sense to me.   Let someone else pay for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Manuel said:

In/Out referendum on the BBC?  Yes please.  I vote out.  

 

You don’t need a referendum, just a subscription model. If you want to watch it, pay for it. If you don’t want to watch it, don’t. Of course the people who keep banging on about how great it is, what value it is, and what a national treasure it is, are the ones opposed to this. It’s almost as if they don’t actually believe the pony they spout. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Manuel said:

It's not about left/right regarding politics, particularly.  Athough the beeb does chop and change on that front, usually depending on proximity to an election, degrading its credibility (in favour of tories actually).  It's tough to get non-biased reporting but, again, if you're going to force your public to pay for media then you need to try a lot harder to achieve that, if that is your aim.  Their diversity agenda I do have issues with, regarding employment and programming.  It makes no sense to me.   Let someone else pay for it.

If you're going to force the public to pay, it needs to be balanced. The bbc has gotten it from both sides....Kuensburg is too right wing; when the BBC says something the government and it's right wing supporters don't like, it's too left wing. The point is, you can't please everyone but these guys....it's so nice to put them on block; you can ignore their nutjobbery; clearly won't be happy until we've got presenters wearing "Make America great" caps. You can't win. The BBC is a worldwide figure of Britishness; what would replace it? I hope it doesn't give in to seething old men like Wes and GM there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hockey_saint said:

If you're going to force the public to pay, it needs to be balanced. The bbc has gotten it from both sides....Kuensburg is too right wing; when the BBC says something the government and it's right wing supporters don't like, it's too left wing. The point is, you can't please everyone but these guys....it's so nice to put them on block; you can ignore their nutjobbery; clearly won't be happy until we've got presenters wearing "Make America great" caps. You can't win. The BBC is a worldwide figure of Britishness; what would replace it? I hope it doesn't give in to seething old men like Wes and GM there.

And the reason that there are petitions to have the BBC defunded, is that their political agenda is run by idiot lefties like you.  You might not like it "giving in" to the likes of me and GM, but we are part of the mainstream public opinion that believes that the BBC is biased towards the left politically and too PC. It is completely out of touch with society outside of the London metropolitan bubble, stuffed full of mediocre presenters who are massively overpaid, epitomised by the likes of idiots like Lineker, claiming that we owe the invention of fish and chips to refugees.

As you say, if the public have to pay for the BBC, then it does need to be balanced, and it clearly is not. The BBC used to be respected around the World as a source of honest reporting, but it is now regarded as a joke. What would replace it? The same sources of news and entertainment provision that are replacing the BBC currently; social media, access to other news and entertainment sources from around the World which do not require compulsory subscription payments and which would constitute a criminal offence if not paid.

They had the chance to reform themselves, but the institutional left wing bias was so deeply ingrained that they did nothing, so change will be forced upon them, including decriminalising non-payment of the license fee and tighter control of their funding.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/09/2020 at 17:00, SFC Forever said:

I totally comprehend the belief that the BBC should be a pay as you watch channel.

If then made to work more honestly it would do so or fade into obscurity.

 But why can't they use the same methods as ITV and channel 4 do? You know, mostly through advertising. I don't their service is anywhere near good enough to create their own version of netflix.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When hundreds of thousands are losing their jobs because of the Chinese virus, the BBC are doing their impression of fiddling while Rome burns, awarding massive pay increases to mediocre presenters despite their viewer ratings going down in many cases. This is on top of taking away free licenses from pensioners over 75 and spending £100 million of license fee payers' money on "diversity" programming. Their current actions are really taking the piss.

Come on Gavyn, you used to be in charge of the BBC; what are your thoughts on these excesses?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

When hundreds of thousands are losing their jobs because of the Chinese virus, the BBC are doing their impression of fiddling while Rome burns, awarding massive pay increases to mediocre presenters despite their viewer ratings going down in many cases. This is on top of taking away free licenses from pensioners over 75 and spending £100 million of license fee payers' money on "diversity" programming. Their current actions are really taking the piss.

Come on Gavyn, you used to be in charge of the BBC; what are your thoughts on these excesses?

Well someone has an agenda...  I quite agree that the bbc should have known before everyone else that the pandemic was coming and therefore shouldn’t have given any pay increases, shouldn’t have replaced the outgoing radio 2 breakfast presenter with someone else on a lower wage thus saving money overall And definitely should not recognise Britain’s diversity.  They should also continue to fund a government project designed to get votes and then abandoned by said government by dumping the liability onto the bbc without them having any say whatsoever

/s

Plenty to criticise the bbc for with today’s report but you’ve picked the wrong targets here

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Barsiem said:

Well someone has an agenda...  I quite agree that the bbc should have known before everyone else that the pandemic was coming and therefore shouldn’t have given any pay increases, shouldn’t have replaced the outgoing radio 2 breakfast presenter with someone else on a lower wage thus saving money overall And definitely should not recognise Britain’s diversity.  They should also continue to fund a government project designed to get votes and then abandoned by said government by dumping the liability onto the bbc without them having any say whatsoever

/s

Plenty to criticise the bbc for with today’s report but you’ve picked the wrong targets here

What are you going on about? The Chinese virus became widespread knowledge in this country since February. It's been the subject of nearly every minute of the BBC news every day since. Wasn't that enough time for it to register with them before making these pay increase awards currently? Was Chris Evans job terminated by the BBC, or did he leave of his own volition to make even more money with Virgin? When he worked as a presenter on Top Gear, the viewing ratings nose-dived. Some of these overpaid presenters add insult to injury by taking additional jobs on the strength of their public exposure with the BBC, notably the potato crisp salesman Lineker (the highest paid presenter at the BBC) and Naga Munchetty. Both feel perfectly at liberty to express political opinions against the ethos of the Corporation's obligation to be impartial. As for your argument for the £100 million funding of diversity programming, a little research by you would reveal that the BBC already has a greater diversity employment record and diversity in its programme personnel and subject matter than the national statistics for racial, religious and sexual orientation diversity in the country. So why waste £100 of our (license payers) money?

As for the second to last sentence, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

What are you going on about? The Chinese virus became widespread knowledge in this country since February. It's been the subject of nearly every minute of the BBC news every day since. Wasn't that enough time for it to register with them before making these pay increase awards currently? Was Chris Evans job terminated by the BBC, or did he leave of his own volition to make even more money with Virgin? When he worked as a presenter on Top Gear, the viewing ratings nose-dived. Some of these overpaid presenters add insult to injury by taking additional jobs on the strength of their public exposure with the BBC, notably the potato crisp salesman Lineker (the highest paid presenter at the BBC) and Naga Munchetty. Both feel perfectly at liberty to express political opinions against the ethos of the Corporation's obligation to be impartial. As for your argument for the £100 million funding of diversity programming, a little research by you would reveal that the BBC already has a greater diversity employment record and diversity in its programme personnel and subject matter than the national statistics for racial, religious and sexual orientation diversity in the country. So why waste £100 of our (license payers) money?

As for the second to last sentence, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Like I say you have an agenda on this so I'm not going to argue it with you. But re the bit I lost you on, a little research by you would reveal exactly what I meant https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-49469337

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Barsiem said:

Like I say you have an agenda on this so I'm not going to argue it with you. But re the bit I lost you on, a little research by you would reveal exactly what I meant https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-49469337

OK,  your main points on the timing of the huge presenters' salary increases, the £100 million payment towards diversity programming (when the BBC are already more diverse than the diversity profile for the country) having been dismissed, you are not prepared to further argue your corner  because you claim I have an agenda on the BBC. 

Regarding the funding of the license fees for the over 75's, your wording of it was so vague that you could have been referring to any number of other things. Thanks for clarifying it. I expect that the government policy of placing the onus onto the BBC to allow the 75s to be able to watch the BBC for free, was in order to encourage them to introduce savings in areas where there was massive over expenditure or inefficiencies to pay for it. The salary increases and expenditure on "diversity programming" clearly illustrate why they are institutionally incapable of such changes, and why they need to be defunded and non-payment of the license fee decriminalised.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

OK,  your main points on the timing of the huge presenters' salary increases, the £100 million payment towards diversity programming (when the BBC are already more diverse than the diversity profile for the country) having been dismissed, you are not prepared to further argue your corner  because you claim I have an agenda on the BBC. 

 

The 'poppy lottery' advert is a masterclass in diversity.  Literally has every minority represented.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unbelievable that Ball gets a pay rise after losing so many listeners. She’s horrendous & it’s no surprise she’s lost so many listeners.
 

Sums Radio 2 up, it’s going right down the pan. Apart from Ken Bruce, it’s lost it.  Ball, Jeremy vine smugfest & then Steve Wight, whose still doing his 80’s act.Here’s a factoid for you, he’s fucking overpaid, he needs serious sackin (no G).
 

The weekends even worse. Tony Blackburn, whose 103 years old, Dermot O’Leary, that Carr mincer with some dopey bird, & then some clown could Rylan. It’s a piss take. 
 

#defundbbc

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Popmaster is the only thing on Radio 2 worth listening to, the rest of it is complete tripe. 

Will be interesting to see if there's much change in the BBC's editorial output now it's being run by Tim Davie who has a Tory background and once stood for them in council elections. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So then. That old white man Andrew Neil has finally been chased out of the BBC and will be chairing a new news channel called GB news. Sounds pretty interesting to be honest and I'll certainly take a keen interest. They are right that itv, Channel 4, bbc and sky are all pretty much interchangeable nowadays as far as news is concerned. Yet another reason to avoid the BBC and no doubt will hasten its demise because other than Attenborough he was the best person on there: 

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/andrew-neil-to-chair-a-new-british-television-news-network/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/07/2020 at 14:31, Lord Duckhunter said:


If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. A poll tax is levied as a fixed sum on every liable individual. 
 

There you go again, if it’s as good as you make out, everyone will pay a subscription, so what’s your problem,.
 

Of course, YOU want the tv poll tax to remain, because YOU think it’s good value. I think the Spectator is great value for money. I think people should pay a poll tax to fund it, even if they only read the Guardian. Think of all the great articles they could write & all the correspondents they could send round the world. In return for the tax revenues they could have a charter making them legally be balanced & neutral. Don’t you think the print industry needs an impartial source of news and current affairs? 

Well, it's levied on households, not individuals. It's literally not a poll tax and doesn't quack like one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/09/2020 at 14:49, Lord Duckhunter said:

Unbelievable that Ball gets a pay rise after losing so many listeners. She’s horrendous & it’s no surprise she’s lost so many listeners.
 

Sums Radio 2 up, it’s going right down the pan. Apart from Ken Bruce, it’s lost it.  Ball, Jeremy vine smugfest & then Steve Wight, whose still doing his 80’s act.Here’s a factoid for you, he’s fucking overpaid, he needs serious sackin (no G).
 

The weekends even worse. Tony Blackburn, whose 103 years old, Dermot O’Leary, that Carr mincer with some dopey bird, & then some clown could Rylan. It’s a piss take. 
 

#defundbbc

Can't argue with that though! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/09/2020 at 11:49, Lord Duckhunter said:

Unbelievable that Ball gets a pay rise after losing so many listeners. She’s horrendous & it’s no surprise she’s lost so many listeners.
 

Sums Radio 2 up, it’s going right down the pan. Apart from Ken Bruce, it’s lost it.  Ball, Jeremy vine smugfest & then Steve Wight, whose still doing his 80’s act.Here’s a factoid for you, he’s fucking overpaid, he needs serious sackin (no G).
 

The weekends even worse. Tony Blackburn, whose 103 years old, Dermot O’Leary, that Carr mincer with some dopey bird, & then some clown could Rylan. It’s a piss take. 
 

#defundbbc

Radio 2 is targeted at the over 35's.  That's why it's full of DJs who were popular in the 90's early 00s, and plays music that would've been on Radio One at that time.  I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm guessing you pre-date that era and that's why you aren't a fan of how it's changed in recent years.  Other stations are supposed to appeal in its stead, but guessing that isn't the case

I suspect the BBC will have to scrap the TV License at some point - for me it's a shame, but if too many people don't feel it provides value for money then it's the only fair option.  Certainly parts of it are going downhill, its journalism especially.  I believe it's still the most neutral news outlet out there, as it seems to get as many complaints from both Labour & Tory supporters

Edited by Barsiem
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Barsiem said:

Radio 2 is targeted at the over 35's.  That's why it's full of DJs who were popular in the 90's early 00s, and plays music that would've been on Radio One at that time.  I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm guessing you pre-date that era and that's why you aren't a fan of how it's changed in recent years.  Other stations are supposed to appeal in its stead, but guessing that isn't the case

I suspect the BBC will have to scrap the TV License at some point - for me it's a shame, but if too many people don't feel it provides value for money then it's the only fair option.  Certainly parts of it are going downhill, its journalism especially.  I believe it's still the most neutral news outlet out there, as it seems to get as many complaints from both Labour & Tory supporters

It's not the value of the fee that's the issue for me, it's the principle that I have to pay for something which to me is clearly biased and I have no option other than to pay it if I want to watch live TV but I don't wish to have woke propaganda thrown at me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The TV license is obviously an outdated concept but as long as it’s good value and the BBC continues to produce good TV and radio I don’t have an issue with it.

The Tories are bound to fuck it up though. A few middles-aged Gammons will celebrate saving a few quid a month and we will end up with a pile of shite stuffed full of ads.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, aintforever said:

The TV license is obviously an outdated concept but as long as it’s good value and the BBC continues to produce good TV and radio I don’t have an issue with it.

The Tories are bound to fuck it up though. A few middles-aged Gammons will celebrate saving a few quid a month and we will end up with a pile of shite stuffed full of ads.

If they separated the website stuff from the rest of it then I'd pay for that. I don't really watch the BBC anymore like I used to a decade or two ago so I can't say it would bother me. I quite like radio solent now and again for the sport but that's about it. Now Andrew Neil has seen the light there really isn't any reason for me to watch any of the current affairs stuff, the comedy went down the pan years ago pretty much since the office, I'm Alan partridge and extras. I watched the bodyguard which I enjoyed a few years ago and my wife enjoyed fleabag even if it wasn't my thing but I genuinely can't recall anything else worth paying for. 

Edited by hypochondriac
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

If they separated the website stuff from the rest of it then I'd pay for that. I don't really watch the BBC anymore like I used to a decade or two ago so I can't say it would bother me. I quite like radio solent now and again for the sport but that's about it. 

Would Radio Solent still exist if they scrapped the license fee? I guess it they stuff it full of ads they might be able to make some money.

I rarely watch BBC TV, but as a whole I think it’s still great value. The website is probably the best thing on the web, Radio 5 and 6 music are both good. People moan that the BBC is biased but it’s as close to independent as you will ever get. If it ends up being owned by Murdoch or similar it would be way way worse.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Would Radio Solent still exist if they scrapped the license fee? I guess it they stuff it full of ads they might be able to make some money.

I rarely watch BBC TV, but as a whole I think it’s still great value. The website is probably the best thing on the web, Radio 5 and 6 music are both good. People moan that the BBC is biased but it’s as close to independent as you will ever get. If it ends up being owned by Murdoch or similar it would be way way worse.

 

I agree it is value for money. My issue is with the propaganda and the fact that it's effectively a TV tax. I resent keeping it going when I see the obscene waste, when I see presenters rewarded for abject failure and I see all the nonsense about diversity quotas and sacking people like sue barker for no reason so they can replace her with someone with a darker skin colour. I like some of the things the new director general has said about diversity of opinion and about reflecting opinions outside of the Westminster bubble. If they sorted some of that, reduced salaries, made people accountable for failure, removed the obsession with gender pay rates and concentrated on making unique and interesting content then I coild almost see myself not minding about paying it despite myself. Certainly if you'd asked me around the turn of the century there'd be no question at all about me wanting it to stay which rather shows how drastically things have fallen apart in about the last decade. I'd probably pay for it though if it becomes a subscription service and they keep the websites. 

Edited by hypochondriac
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})