UKC

Tony Blackburn

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Indy 25 Feb 2016
Trying to formulate an opinion on the Tony Blackburn news today.

It appears that his evidence was rejected but doesn't say why it was rejected.

Is the BBC trying to bury bad news by 'sacking' TB?

Have to say I'm rather cynical about the BBC Saville report..... no senior management at fault???
Rigid Raider 25 Feb 2016
In reply to Indy:

His evidence wasn't of the expected standard. I interpret that as meaning he wouldn't cooperate, which gave the BBC the reason they needed to get rid of him. Since he's threatened anybody who questions his integrity with legal action I won't say what I think but obviously he can't have been involved in abusing his position back in the 60s and 70s when people were in awe of DJs like him.
OP Indy 25 Feb 2016
In reply to Rigid Raider:
It appears that he said he wasn't interviewed about the allegations 45 years ago but Dame whoever said he was. Hall has used that to claim he wasn't fully co-operating so sacking him.

So the crux ( no pun intended) is what evidence does Dame whoever have that TB WAS interviewed 45 years ago.

via phone.
Post edited at 21:12
1
 The New NickB 25 Feb 2016
In reply to Indy:
It surprised me, I thought they sacked him 20 years ago!
Post edited at 21:12
 Dave Garnett 25 Feb 2016
In reply to Indy:

> It appears that he said he wasn't interviewed about the allegations 45 years ago but Dame whoever said he was. Hall has used that to claim he wasn't fully co-operating so sacking him.

Yes, this all seems rather odd. If Tony Blackburn was 'spoken to' obviously no action was actually taken, so there doesn't seem any obvious reason for him to deny it in his evidence.

Maybe more facts will emerge but an alternative explanation is that there was some sort of incident at the BBC all those years ago and it was thought incumbent to speak to various people who were around at the time (maybe as witnesses, rather than suspects). However, this wasn't actually done, either due to incompetence or deference but a convenient record was created to suggest that it was, hence Blackburn's recollection (and evidence) that it hadn't happened.

Another alternative might be that the BBC believes it did speak to him but it was done in such coded and obscure language that he genuinely had no idea what they were hinting at.



 Jim Fraser 25 Feb 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Another alternative might be that the BBC believes it did speak to him but it was done in such coded and obscure language that he genuinely had no idea what they were hinting at.


The British? Surely not!

 Mick Ward 25 Feb 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:

All very 'Tinker Tailor'...

Either he's a wrong 'un and he's up before the beak or he's a good 'un (as I prefer to think and until proven otherwise). If the latter, let him continue doing what he does. As it is, they've destroyed his life (and pissed off an awful lot of people).

Meanwhile Savile perpetrated evil for decades and nobody in BBC management ever heard anything. Pull the other one!

'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.'

Mick
 Steve Perry 25 Feb 2016
In reply to Indy:

His skill to count down the top 40 to No.1 with such dexterity and timing should put him above all laws!
2
Rigid Raider 26 Feb 2016
In reply to Mick Ward:

The public has a very short memory. Back in the olden days it was considered fair game for a chap to put his hand up the secretary's skirt or fondle the odd boob or bum; nobody considered that a crime and the victim would have just put the perpetrator down as a creep and done her best to avoid him. Even in the early 80s in my first proper office job a charming but wolfishly randy older homosexual man in my office would make suggestive comments at me, which were mostly funny but occasionally discomforting. I doubt whether that kind of low-level "fun" would be tolerated nowadays.

I can't help wondering how many older retired men, especially those who were in positions of power and authority, are dreading that knock on the door and wondering if past behaviour is going to come back and haunt them.
2
 Jim Lancs 26 Feb 2016
The sacking of TB has nothing to do with what he was alleged to have done, (but subsequently cleared of doing), back 'in the good old days'.

It simply concerns his behaviour recently at the inquiry. His employer asked that everyone should be open so the truth could finally be established. After the Hutton enquiry was so critical of the 'culture' within the BBC, they were determined that they wouldn't face the same allegations of cover up and secrecy again.

There was written evidence that TB had been interviewed by (amongst others) the Head of Light Entertainment (Bill Cotton) a QC (Sir Brian Neill) on a number of occasions. But TB continued to claim he had never been interviewed by anyone. However TB's own council said to Dame Janet Smith at the inquiry that she should "rely on the written evidence and ignore the recollections of his own client". Therefore it was hardly surprising that she then said in her report that she rejected the validity of TB's evidence.

So Tony Hall has said: "I’m making no judgement about what happened in the past. I'm making a judgement about how someone has engaged with a seriously important inquiry, I'm making a judgement about the standards of behaviour I expect from everybody working at the BBC now."

That lack of standards was then deemed to be enough to terminate TB's contract. If he then carries through with his threat to sue the BBC over wrongful dismissal, we'll have the chance for a court to give its opinion about whether the BBC were right.
 Babika 26 Feb 2016
In reply to Indy:

> Have to say I'm rather cynical about the BBC Saville report..... no senior management at fault???


It is simply incomprehensible that no one at senior level is being held accountable for the failings. It's all very well for Tony Hall to make abject apologies now but victims must feel let down by the lack of responsibility/accountability
 Dave Garnett 26 Feb 2016
In reply to Jim Lancs:

> There was written evidence that TB had been interviewed by (amongst others) the Head of Light Entertainment (Bill Cotton) a QC (Sir Brian Neill) on a number of occasions. But TB continued to claim he had never been interviewed by anyone. However TB's own council said to Dame Janet Smith at the inquiry that she should "rely on the written evidence and ignore the recollections of his own client".

Maybe it was down to what Tony Blackburn thought 'interview' meant but his brief should have clarified what he was being asked and it's never good a good sign for your own counsel to be asking for your testimony to be ignored!

 fred99 26 Feb 2016
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> .... Back in the olden days it was considered fair game .....

I don't know what sort of company you kept, but if that had happened amongst the people I kept company with, the a**hole would have been taken outside, had his face smashed in, and then told to go away and keep away or he'd get worse if he showed his face again.
Not exactly PC nowadays, but it had the right result.
4
 Rob Exile Ward 26 Feb 2016
In reply to fred99:

You're overstating the case. A lot of girls and women were groped, touched up, generally assaulted - I went to teacher training college in the early 70s and can still remember about 20 girls sitting round. Something like half had an experience that was considerably closer to sexual assault than innocent fumble.

But this whole sexuality thing is a bit of a minefield. Of course 'celebrities' will take liberties - that's partly the point. There's a reason they're celebrities, and that's because they have power, charisma, call it what you will - that's not to condone the activities of slimy inadequates like Saville or Hall or whoever, but it's also not to be too surprised either. Rather than wringing its hands in faux regret for past failings, maybe the BBC should be documenting how it prevents its current crop of current media stars from brushing up against makeup girls or texting besotted 15 year olds.
 Timmd 26 Feb 2016
In reply to fred99:
My sister is in law in her early 40's and has mentioned being about 14 or 16, and how when first having part time jobs having men touching her bum and things, and talking about it to her mum and it (then) just being seen as 'what men did', or what some men did at least.

Which puts the time she experienced that as around the start of the 90's now I think about it.
Post edited at 13:48
1
 Babika 26 Feb 2016
In reply to Timmd:

At least the fact that we have a premiership footballer in court at the moment for sexting and kissing a 15 year suggests that acceptance has finally moved on. Taken a long time though, I agree.
 Mike Highbury 26 Feb 2016
In reply to Rigid Raider:
> The public has a very short memory. Back in the olden days it was considered fair game for a chap to put his hand up the secretary's skirt or fondle the odd boob or bum; nobody considered that a crime

That'll be why you are called the Rigid Raider, I guess.
 Timmd 26 Feb 2016
In reply to Babika:

> At least the fact that we have a premiership footballer in court at the moment for sexting and kissing a 15 year suggests that acceptance has finally moved on.

Amen to that.



1
 Offwidth 26 Feb 2016
In reply to fred99:

If someone in a position of power did this and was assaulted as a result it would be the person assaulting him that would be facing legal consequences. Its why the likes of Saville got away with it and why only ordinary Joe's with wandering hands on people they knew sometimes got black eyes (you had to catch them first... chances of doing that for anonymous gropers on a train or bus were slim). My experience of the difference in the way women were treated in public between then and now is a gulf.
In reply to Indy:

Not sure if this helps or not.

At school I heard the word Necrophilia for the first time, I didn't know what it meant. On asking I was told what it meant and that it was mentioned in relation to Saville and that the connection was the mother of a friend of a friend (the mother worked as a nurse at a nearby hospital).

At the time if the nurse had spoken out she would not have been believed or given any time, even if she was given time by her managers it was unlikely that her managers would have taken it any further as they would have just been in the same position as the nurse.

This was what happened at the time.

(This is just my honest recollection of events/circumstances from 40 yrs ago when I was a child)
 buzby 28 Feb 2016
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> The public has a very short memory. Back in the olden days it was considered fair game for a chap to put his hand up the secretary's skirt or fondle the odd boob or bum; nobody considered that a crime


That'll be why you are called the Rigid Raider, I guess.

now that's funny . :>))
 Dave Garnett 28 Feb 2016
In reply to Jim Lancs:

> There was written evidence that TB had been interviewed by (amongst others) the Head of Light Entertainment (Bill Cotton) a QC (Sir Brian Neill) on a number of occasions. But TB continued to claim he had never been interviewed by anyone.

Well, he was on R4 this morning and was very clear that he had never been interviewed and insisted on saying so, despite the suggestion it would be simpler to claim he couldn't remember.

He couldn't account for the document and claimed that no-one could tell him where these meeting were alleged to have taken place. I have to say he seemed remarkably calm and reasonable, and very sure of himself.

I've always thought there was something oddly naive and guileless about TB and he convinced me that he believes what he's saying. It would have been much easier for him to to go along with the BBC's version, with no hint that he's done anything wrong.
 Offwidth 28 Feb 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Being convincing and appearing guileless needs to be matched up against the culture he worked in back then and both are irrelevant to the case in hand. The details on this meeting are for the lawyers.

I think the BBC management are using this to aid covering for the organisation, irrespective of any wrong doing on TB's behalf. In a big organisation the worst things rarely see the light of day and when they do, often no action is taken against seniour management wrongdoing and anything reaching criminal action is vanishingly rare.
Post edited at 12:51
 Dave Garnett 28 Feb 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> Being convincing and appearing guileless needs to be matched up against the culture he worked in back then and both are irrelevant to the case in hand. The details on this meeting are for the lawyers.

Oh sure, I agree, but it looks as if the only way to get a proper investigation is for TB to sue the BBC (which he doesn't want to do but will if that's what it takes). Something's not right somewhere.
 Siward 28 Feb 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Spot on- if he's playing some sort of clever game he's disguising it very well indeed.

Until and unless the public see these documents that Dame Janet has seen we're not going to be able to make an informed decision.
OP Indy 28 Feb 2016
In reply to Siward:

I note that the BBC has so far refused/ignored questions to confirm/deny if they offered to let him resign then possibly come back at a later date.

Also Dame whoever said that the same culture of deference/fear which led to Savile still exists today. If you ask me, that makes Lord Halls position untenable.
 Timmd 28 Feb 2016
In reply to Indy:

> Also Dame whoever said that the same culture of deference/fear which led to Savile still exists today. If you ask me, that makes Lord Halls position untenable.

What's bad that's happened while Lord Hall has been in position?
 fred99 29 Feb 2016
In reply to Offwidth etc.:

The period in question was the 70's.
The main group I was with were Venture Scouts (and Ranger Guides).
We looked after our own.
If anyone had ventured to go to the police, then we would have made damn sure that we fellas turned up to court in full uniform, and the victims of indecent actions turned up in Ranger uniform as well.
Now who do you think would want to end up on the front page of any newspaper for complaining about being thumped for groping a Guide.

I say again, there were NO repeat offences.

The reason that so many people are able to be nasty, vindictive and underhand nowadays is that they scream for a lawyer at the first indication that their victims are going to fight back.
If we could go back to the era when if someone groped a female their boyfriend/husband/brother/father would "deal" summarily with the ratbag, then they'd be scared to do it.
Unless you have video or forensic evidence, proving indecent assault in court is difficult to say the least.
9
 planetmarshall 29 Feb 2016
In reply to fred99:

> The period in question was the 70's.

> The main group I was with were Venture Scouts (and Ranger Guides).

> We looked after our own.

So did the Catholic Church. I'm sure they would rather have handled their issues 'in-house' also.

> I say again, there were NO repeat offences.

Sure there weren't.

> If we could go back to the era when if someone groped a female their boyfriend/husband/brother/father would "deal" summarily with the ratbag, then they'd be scared to do it.

Which would be a massive step backwards. Far better that victims of sexual assault feel that they can come forward and be believed than having to rely on vigilante justice from the menfolk.

 Mike Highbury 29 Feb 2016
In reply to fred99:

> The period in question was the 70's. The main group I was with were Venture Scouts (and Ranger Guides). If anyone had ventured to go to the police, then we would have made damn sure that we fellas turned up to court in full uniform, and the victims of indecent actions turned up in Ranger uniform as well.

Just one question that you may have addressed above, of course. How many sexual offences did you or your pals report to the police?
 planetmarshall 29 Feb 2016
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> Just one question that you may have addressed above, of course. How many sexual offences did you or your pals report to the police?

Might also look into correlations with a rise of assaults on paediatricians.
 neilh 29 Feb 2016
In reply to fred99:

Sorry I have to disagree with you. I was in a similar venture/ranger guide unit in the 70's. there were definetly a couple of dodgy characters around expecially at what I would call county level - one was later jailed for repeat offences.

Fortunately these issues are now dealt with alot more constructively and handled better by the scouts.

My own take is that the scouts and similar organisations literally did not have a clue as to how to deal with these type of issues. Times have changed..thank goodness.

 The New NickB 29 Feb 2016
In reply to Babika:

> It is simply incomprehensible that no one at senior level is being held accountable for the failings. It's all very well for Tony Hall to make abject apologies now but victims must feel let down by the lack of responsibility/accountability

Having met Saville, can say that I and particularly my ex-wife, founding him deeply disturbing and I am amazed that he did not set off alarm bells with people. However, I was far too young in the 70s and early 80s to really understand the culture of what was and wasn't considered acceptable.

I have also met Stuart Hall and Cyril Smith, and despite in Smith's case having heard some of the rumours and having spent many hours in his company (he was my MP and a governor at my school), I didn't get the feeling anything was odd about either of them. My uncle, worked with Hall in the mid 80s on North West Tonight, really didn't like him at all, but was surprised by the allegations when they emerged 25 years later.
 fred99 29 Feb 2016
In reply to Mike Highbury:

Who would have done sweet fa.
1
 fred99 29 Feb 2016
In reply to planetmarshall:

> So did the Catholic Church. I'm sure they would rather have handled their issues 'in-house' also.

If you're accusing me of being a paedophile then come out and say so.

I've been talking about dealing with gropers etc..


> Which would be a massive step backwards. Far better that victims of sexual assault feel that they can come forward and be believed than having to rely on vigilante justice from the menfolk.

Considering the amount of cover-ups by the police identified already, the police were hardly likely to deal with it properly.
My own sister joined the local constabulary, and she found them to be one of the WORST groups of people with regard to their attitude toward women in general (not to mention gays, coloureds, etc..)
2
 fred99 29 Feb 2016
In reply to planetmarshall:

> Might also look into correlations with a rise of assaults on paediatricians.

If something was seen to happen, then we knew how to act.

Again, like above, if you think I'm thick then think again.

Question;
Why are you standing up for the rights of perverts to be treated so much better than their victims - are you one of the perverts ??
7
 planetmarshall 29 Feb 2016
In reply to fred99:

> Question;

> Why are you standing up for the rights of perverts to be treated so much better than their victims - are you one of the perverts ??

Seriously? I didn't think you were thick at all. I do now.

1
 Babika 29 Feb 2016
In reply to planetmarshall:

Guys, guys.....no one's accusing anyone of anything.

I have some sympathy with the approach of swift and summary justice, I think we all do, except its not PC to say so. But I'm also pleased that we have moved on vastly such that paedophile/sexist/plain nasty behaviour is deemed wholly unacceptable by 99% of society and the various agencies also take it seriously.

What is still slightly worrying is that the dazzle of celebrity is still making it a bit hard for some victims to be heard. This seems the issue that the BBC are still wrestling with, and other organisations as well, possibly
 Rob Exile Ward 29 Feb 2016
In reply to Babika:

'I have some sympathy with the approach of swift and summary justice, I think we all do, except its not PC to say so.'

That will include mobs hounding a paediatrician because they misunderstood her job title.

Count me out, and if that makes me PC, then that's a bonus.
1
 planetmarshall 29 Feb 2016
In reply to Babika:

> What is still slightly worrying is that the dazzle of celebrity is still making it a bit hard for some victims to be heard. This seems the issue that the BBC are still wrestling with, and other organisations as well, possibly

I think it's more basic than that. Saville's victims deserve justice, but the man responsible is dead, he can no longer answer for his crimes. It's understandable that people want someone to be answerable, to take responsibility for what happened, but ultimately that responsibility lies with Saville alone.
Helen Bach 29 Feb 2016
In reply to fred99:

"If something was seen to happen, then we knew how to act."

... and your other incoherent ramblings. I've always had strong suspicions about vigilantes that they are *ahem* too "close" to the problem.

"if you think I'm thick then think again"

I don't think second thoughts are necessary.
 MonkeyPuzzle 29 Feb 2016
In reply to fred99:

> Who would have done sweet fa.

So, to clarify, you didn't report any to the police.

I would imagine most persistent sex offenders would take a kicking over a police investigation any day. Sounds like what you're doing is making yourselves feel better about it without really helping the victims.
 ThunderCat 29 Feb 2016
In reply to fred99:
> Question;

> Why are you standing up for the rights of perverts to be treated so much better than their victims - are you one of the perverts ??

I think it's the extra-judicial / taking the law into your own hand / mob-beatings that we have a problem with, because as we know, nothing bad ever came from a torch and pitchfork wielding mob, did it.

No innocents ever get targetted, no one ever gets killed, no revenge attacks ever happen. A perfect solution.

And clearly, the mob rule approach has worked wonders, because child sexual exploitation has almost vanished over the past 30 years.

(There is a smattering of sarcasm in that post, by the way)
Post edited at 15:39
1
 jkarran 29 Feb 2016
In reply to Babika:

> I have some sympathy with the approach of swift and summary justice, I think we all do, except its not PC to say so.

I don't, none what so ever.
jk
1
 jkarran 29 Feb 2016
In reply to fred99:

> I've been talking about dealing with gropers etc..

Out of curiosity, how many people did you physically assault?
How many did you report to the police?
jk
 Dave Garnett 29 Feb 2016
In reply to planetmarshall:

> I think it's more basic than that. Saville's victims deserve justice, but the man responsible is dead, he can no longer answer for his crimes.

Yes, this has surfaced a few times lately, most recently with Greville Janner. Some people seem to want dead paedophiles disinterred and left on a gibbet at Tyburn or their heads impaled on spikes.

Hard as it is, victims have to come to terms with the fact that, whatever someone has done, once they are dead it's too late to hold them to account.

1
 Babika 29 Feb 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'I have some sympathy with the approach of swift and summary justice, I think we all do, except its not PC to say so.'

> That will include mobs hounding a paediatrician because they misunderstood her job title.


eh?

so how exactly do you make the leap that that could be regarded as "justice"? I'm certainly not suggesting that error or mob rule is in any way acceptable, but if (say) guys who think its acceptable to grope or abuse women in the workplace are shamed quickly and loudly by their colleagues it just might make them more ashamed and not do it again. Or it might not. Who knows the minds of these creeps.
 fred99 01 Mar 2016
In reply to jkarran:

> Out of curiosity, how many people did you physically assault?
Me personally - none, others unfortunately had to. Though I did have to inform persons that if they continued then they would have to be prepared for trouble.
Most of the time the mere informing to the a**hole (or a**holes, they work in groups you know) that 4 or 5 people sitting at the table next were the young ladies brothers or friends was enough to persuade them that unwanted and threatening "hitting on" apparently unattended females was not accepted in that pub.
This meant that young (and not so young) females felt safe in that pub, without the need for male escort.

> How many did you report to the police?
None - as I've said earlier, in that era the average copper would have regarded an unattended female as "fair game" for they themselves to force their attentions upon them.
Their attitude was that any females out unattended would be "up for it", and it would therefore be OK for any male to push their attentions as far as they wanted to.


2
 jon 01 Mar 2016
In reply to fred99:

> None - as I've said earlier, in that era the average copper would have regarded an unattended female as "fair game" for they themselves to force their attentions upon them.

F*ck me, there are generalisations... and then there are generalisations.
1
 elsewhere 01 Mar 2016
In reply to Indy:
Judge who led BBC sex probe insists he DID interview Tony Blackburn over claims DJ seduced 15-year-old... but says he thinks star was not guilty of abuse.

He rejected the DJ's claims he was never quizzed over the allegations Sir Brian's low-key investigation cleared DJ Tony Blackburn of involvement with 15-year-old Claire McAlpine.

Speaking from his London home, the 92-year-old told the Mail: 'Of course I can remember [interviewing Blackburn] £ It is written in my report.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3468527/Judge-led-BBC-sex-probe-ins...

>Have to say I'm rather cynical about the BBC Saville report..... no senior management at fault???

Probably true that no senior management ***identifiably*** at fault...
Post edited at 11:50
 MG 01 Mar 2016
In reply to elsewhere:
'Of course I can remember [interviewing Blackburn] £ It is written in my report.'

Rather an odd statement - how does having something written in a report affect whether you can remember it? It sounds to me like he can't in fact remember but, because the report says he interviewed, he is assuming he did. That said, it would be odd to note an interview in a report that didn't take place.
Post edited at 11:55
 Mick Ward 01 Mar 2016
In reply to elsewhere:

> Probably true that no senior management ***identifiably*** at fault...

I don't get this 'senior management' proviso. Let's imagine you're the bog cleaner and you become aware of JS being a wrong 'un. You're a decent, human being and you have a go at him. He tells you to piss off and mind your own business. Either you thump him or you go to your supervisor and report him.

Let's say you go to your supervisor, who says, "Well I'll have to go to my manager to get some action." He or she may well say, "And I'll have to go to mine."

Meanwhile you're carrying on scrubbing the bogs. But you're waiting for an answer - and some action re JS. Let's say you don't get it. What do you do then? A letter, marked Private and Personal for the Director-General. Yes of course his PA will open it and read it. And what's she (it would have been a she, back then) going to do? She's going to hand it to the Director-General, horrified. (That's if she - and half the BBC - didn't know already on the grapevine. I'm sure they bloody well did.)

If you knew about JS (BBC, police, journalists, anybody) and said/did nothing, surely that's wrong?

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men (and women) do nothing.'

Mick





 The New NickB 01 Mar 2016
In reply to MG:

> Rather an odd statement - how does having something written in a report affect whether you can remember it? It sounds to me like he can't in fact remember but, because the report says he interviewed, he is assuming he did. That said, it would be odd to note an interview in a report that didn't take place.

Possibly not if you think of it as two separate statements. 1. I remember 2. My memory is backed up by the report.
Jim C 01 Mar 2016
In reply to MG:

> 'Of course I can remember [interviewing Blackburn] £ It is written in my report.'

> Rather an odd statement - how does having something written in a report affect whether you can remember it? It sounds to me like he can't in fact remember but, because the report says he interviewed, he is assuming he did. That said, it would be odd to note an interview in a report that didn't take place.

Very strange indeed .

I would have thought given the subject matter anyone, would have approached such an interview with some trepidation. I would have thought that the reaction of someone to such an interview would be burned in my memory, whether it was to nonchalantly brush it off, or to react angrily .

But then 'it was the seventies' (is the usual excuse, 'things were different then' )

Jim C 01 Mar 2016
In reply to The New NickB:

> Possibly not if you think of it as two separate statements. 1. I remember 2. My memory is backed up by the report.

But what did he remember ?
Was it an angry/friendly encounter, was it a box ticking exercise. What did he remember about it?

Donald82 01 Mar 2016
In reply to fred99:

>"if you think I'm thick then think again"

Jim C 01 Mar 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> So, to clarify, you didn't report any to the police.

> I would imagine most persistent sex offenders would take a kicking over a police investigation any day. Sounds like what you're doing is making yourselves feel better about it without really helping the victims.

The trouble is they get rumbled in one community( and possibly get a kicking) and then move unreported to another area, and chance their luck again abusing elsewhere. Not the result we want.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...