Stone's Conservative MP Sir Bill Cash wants HS2 to be cancelled to benefit the Health service

Esker-pades · 6 Apr 2020

Neen Sollars said:
True colours shown Yorkie. You don`t have to be very bright to know you have to spend £75 billion (plus) on Phase 1 and 1a before you start generating fare revenue. And it will take years and years to get the outlay back, if you are lucky. Bill Cash has always been anti HS2, its a bit like Brexit, anti democratic forces are trying to say C19 pandemic means final Brexit deal should not happen. So its always going to happen that fervent anti HS2 campaigners will will ramp up their campaign. However I am sure whilst this pandemic will show Brexit was the right decision, I think the need for HS2 and its huge cost will have to be looked at again.

HS2 has been 'looked at again' numerous times. It's been given the go-ahead about 8 times by various governments. How many times do different people and reports have to find that HS2 is expensive but is worth it before we actually do it?

For all its many faults the Liam Halligan (anti HS2) Despatches programme has a very valid point, the immediate, medium and long term need is to get longer trains, and hopefully a few more of them, to ferry commuters into the UK cities. The panicking passenger on the Despatches programme is saying "Its a two car only I have to get on!" then fights her way on to a rammed train. This is an unacceptable situation. It it were a 6 car train there is no drama. I watched a you tube feature of a 6 car pacer going for scrap at Kingsbury depot, if that had rolled into that station would the passenger have said "Oh no! its a 6 car pacer, I`m not getting on that!" I don`t think so.

Buying more trains is a good idea, but it has different measures of impact in different places, and is very difficult in a lot of them. For example, trains at maximum length (12 coaches) on the WCML are already rammed. What constitutes maximum length is also different, and so the increase available varies.
Pacers have long been complained about by the general public. They also don't comply with new government legislation (more importantly).
Basically, longer trains don't negate HS2.

The Halligan programme was well taken to bits here: https://paulbigland.blog/2019/02/12...-hs2-a-poor-hatchet-job-not-an-investigation/

Like the other month’s ‘Panorama’ programme, last night’s ‘Dispatches’ programme written and presented by Liam Halligan was puffed for days by the remaining groups opposed to Hs2, who (once again) proclaimed that it would be the ‘smoking gun’ that would finally kill off HS2. As usual, the truth was very different.

What did we actually learn from the 30 minute programme? Nothing that we didn’t know already. Like Panorama it was a rehash of old news and stories spiced up with ‘revelations’ that weren’t, plus an awful lot of un-attributable briefings from anonymous sources where speculation was presented as fact.

In the first part of the programme Halligan spent a lot of time with weary Northern Rail commuters on short-formed or delayed trains who (understandably) were complaining about the service. The Pacer trains came in for particular criticism – but more of them later…

Early on, Halligan is filmed getting off a train at Liverpool Lime St. Was there any mention of the fact the station’s just had £340m spent on it as it’s been rebuilt, had platforms added and extended, extensive track alterations and been resignalled? Of course not.

RailUK Forums

The Ham · 6 Apr 2020

It would be interesting to see the response from said MP if the following statement were to be released:

We are going to cancel HS2, however to facilitate the growth in passenger numbers on long distance services at are going to close several stations along the WCML and therefore reuse the paths from the trains which serve those stations. Unfortunately this will result in the removal of the London and Northwestern services from the following stations, with services provided by bus to the nearest station which remains open, Stone, Kidsgrove and Alsager with other stations seeing a reduction in services

Alternatively the response from the same MP would likely be very different if the following statement was released:

Following the completion of HS2, London and Northwestern will now be running additional services to many existing stations, including the reopening of the following stations to rail services (which are currently serves by buses) Barlaston and Wedgewood.

hooverboy · 8 Apr 2020

underbank said:
Rather than austerity, I think we'll be seeing pretty huge tax/nic rises for everyone once all this is over. The general public clearly want a lot more spent on the NHS so they're all going to have to pay, including pensioners etc. There's a limit to how much more you can tax the middle earning workers who've borne the brunt of tax rises of the past decade or two, i.e. student loan repayments, nic inceases, workplace pension deductions, child benefit clawback etc. The lower earners and pensioners have done pretty well from being shielded and I think it's now time they put their hands in their pockets too.

I think the bounceback is going to have to be looked at very carefully.
There is a limit to how much tax/NIC the government can take before it becomes economically counterproductive.
Likewise there is also a limit as to how much stuff can be pared back to the bone.

rather than blanket increase tax national insurance etc, we need to be streamlining the whole process(es) of government so it is much simpler to administer(and enforce)

1)a flat tax of 30% or so,with one set threshhold(lets say £15k,could even be 20K), replaces present income tax and national insurance-but now no upper limit on contributions (NI contributions do have a ceiling presently)
2)PROPER enforcement of tax avoidance/lessening measures,and scaling back of loopholes(sorry google and IR35)
3)"regionalisation" of things like local government payrolls,to reduce duplication..needs better funding but a clearer focus.

Things like HS2 now need to be looked at in great depth,to justify what is being spent and how.
Doesn't mean that it won't happen, but the costliest and most time consuming bits need to be really put under the microscope to see how the project can be done more efficiently or maximum benefit.
That might mean de-scoping the speed,or it could be something as simple as creating pre-fab functional stations rather than nice ornate aesthetically pleasing works of art that cost a fortune and take months longer to erect.

Ianno87 · 8 Apr 2020

hooverboy said:
Things like HS2 now need to be looked at in great depth,to justify what is being spent and how.
Doesn't mean that it won't happen, but the costliest and most time consuming bits need to be really put under the microscope to see how the project can be done more efficiently or maximum benefit.
That might mean de-scoping the speed,or it could be something as simple as creating pre-fab functional stations rather than nice ornate aesthetically pleasing works of art that cost a fortune and take months longer to erect.

By and large the Oakervee review has already considered these.

Things like fancy stations don't really impact the Programme; the civil infrastructure and railway systems works (fit out and then testing etc) are normally the critical path on such things; you can do pretty much whatever you like in parallel with things like stations.

hooverboy · 8 Apr 2020

Ianno87 said:
By and large the Oakervee review has already considered these.

Things like fancy stations don't really impact the Programme; the civil infrastructure and railway systems works (fit out and then testing etc) are normally the critical path on such things; you can do pretty much whatever you like in parallel with things like stations.

in times where every penny needs to be recouped,even things like fancy stations which have a supposedly minor impact should be taken into account, because several minor overspends will quickly add up to one large one.

Having said that, there may be an opportunity to improve "station experiences" by combining with more retail outlets at the mainline stations.Maybe an "airport departure lounge" type building would be a good way of generating extra rent/ revenue at the stations. I'm not talking quite birmingham new street level, but definitely more variety than a WHSmiths,pumpkin coffee shop and a coupe of non-functional vending machines.

I think in the case of civils,etc, then it would probably be sensible to de-scope to HS1 specs under the circumstances.
The hardware is already tried and tested.
There's a time and place for innovation, but under the circumstances what we need is "good enough,quickly"

The remainder of the money saved should go in part to better NHS funding,
The other part needs to go on upgrading the rest of the railway network, the inter regional lines(and some rural track/signal replacements) rather than purely mainline upgrades.
These have been neglected for a long,long time and do need the investment

The_Train · 8 Apr 2020

hooverboy said:
in times where every penny needs to be recouped,even things like fancy stations which have a supposedly minor impact should be taken into account, because several minor overspends will quickly add up to one large one.

Having said that, there may be an opportunity to improve "station experiences" by combining with more retail outlets at the mainline stations.Maybe an "airport departure lounge" type building would be a good way of generating extra rent/ revenue at the stations. I'm not talking quite birmingham new street level, but definitely more variety than a WHSmiths,pumpkin coffee shop and a coupe of non-functional vending machines.

I think in the case of civils,etc, then it would probably be sensible to de-scope to HS1 specs under the circumstances.
The hardware is already tried and tested.
There's a time and place for innovation, but under the circumstances what we need is "good enough,quickly"

The remainder of the money saved should go in part to better NHS funding,
The other part needs to go on upgrading the rest of the railway network, the inter regional lines(and some rural track/signal replacements) rather than purely mainline upgrades.
These have been neglected for a long,long time and do need the investment

Building for now is no good though is it? What happens in 20 years when the line is no longer suitable and the entire route needs upgrading. Not only will it cause disruption, it is likely to then cost even more money.

Surely if we are building new infrastructure now, it needs to be made to last and to be still fit for purpose in 100 years time. A half-hearted approach now is no better than not bothering at all in my opinion

Ianno87 · 8 Apr 2020

hooverboy said:
I think in the case of civils,etc, then it would probably be sensible to de-scope to HS1 specs under the circumstances.
The hardware is already tried and tested.

Hardware also tried and tested for higher speeds.

De-scoping civil saves a tiny infrastructure cost but proportionately hits the benefits much, much more, plus larger ongoing cost (e.g. more trains needed in circulation).

hooverboy · 8 Apr 2020

The_Train said:
Building for now is no good though is it? What happens in 20 years when the line is no longer suitable and the entire route needs upgrading. Not only will it cause disruption, it is likely to then cost even more money.

Surely if we are building new infrastructure now, it needs to be made to last and to be still fit for purpose in 100 years time. A half-hearted approach now is no better than not bothering at all in my opinion

I'm suggesting a de-scoping down from 250mph to 186mph.
The components for 186mph running are already designed and parameters known,and can be bought now "off the shelf" so to speak.
They've already been designed for the stresses and strains of that type of running,and already built for envisaged long term use.

If we were to go down the 250mph route,there's another additional layer of extensive dynamic testing to do with components we've not used before in this country, which will increase costs considerably.

do you think it is worth the additional costs for saving 15 minutes london-birmingham, 30 minutes london-manchester/leeds, or would you rather have the trains running(and a seat?)

hooverboy · 8 Apr 2020

Ianno87 said:
Hardware also tried and tested for higher speeds.

De-scoping civil saves a tiny infrastructure cost but proportionately hits the benefits much, much more, plus larger ongoing cost (e.g. more trains needed in circulation).

more trains needed in circulation can be re-purposed as a more frequent service can it not?

Meole · 9 Apr 2020

The economic recovery requires investment in infrastructure to provide employment, more projects will be required not less.

js1000 · 9 Apr 2020

I've had enough. Are people deliberately thick? How many more times!

I'm not the biggest proponent of HS2 but in the grand scheme of things it is change down the back of the sofa. It's not some instantaneous bill off a credit card that it is always (and wrongly) portrayed as - it is a ~£100 billion investment over a 20 year period. The money forecast in for HS2 does not exist now and cannot simply diverted elsewhere tomorrow.

The NHS annual budget is £134 billion - funding over the same 20-year period would be £2.6 TRILLION.

STOP COMPARING APPLES AND PEARS!

hooverboy · 10 Apr 2020

js1000 said:
I've had enough. Are people deliberately thick? How many more times!

I'm not the biggest proponent of HS2 but in the grand scheme of things it is change down the back of the sofa. It's not some instantaneous bill off a credit card that it is always (and wrongly) portrayed as - it is a ~£100 billion investment over a 20 year period. The money forecast in for HS2 does not exist now and cannot simply diverted elsewhere tomorrow.

The NHS annual budget is £134 billion - funding over the same 20-year period would be £2.6 TRILLION.

STOP COMPARING APPLES AND PEARS!

there is nothing at all wrong in trying to figure out what will give the best return on investment.
£100 billion is still a lot of money even if over 20 years.
, £5bn a year is a lot of money too.

as for the money not existing,the central banks are very capable of turning on the credit spigots very quickly,just as we've seen from BoE and the treasury of late.
They just issue a shed load more government bonds,
of course, the takers of those bonds are also looking for return on investment(or security)

once the issuance has been made,government departments get the money to spend and that filters down to subcontractors,and then society in general through the form of payout,payrolls,infrastructure and services.

The point I am trying to make is these funds have to be used efficiently, it isn't just free money-as bond investors are seeking a return.
Every invstment needs to be viewed as "working capital",or collateral.
we are actually fairly fortunate in this country that it is generally seen as quite a low risk investment financially,meaning we will honour and repay our debts.There are others around like argentina for instance,where the risk is so high that speculators insist on obscenely high interest rates as danger money to cover the risk of default.

just throwing around the extra couple of billion here or there because "it's pocket change" is a surefire way to put off a potential buyer doing their due diligence.

The few billion saved through a descoping,needs to be applied to other areas,such as upgrades of other areas that presently have either chronic bottlenecks, or chronically long journey times that need reducing.
It's also a time to invest in machinery that enables these projects to be undertaken and completed faster.

we've got to think functional now, not flashy.
for the saving on HS2 descoping,even at 10% or £500m a year,you can provide probably 10 other meaningful upgrades on other parts of the network, which is much more beneficial to the country as a whole.
ie earthworks and trackwork/signalling to raise speed limits in some areas from walking pace up to cycling pace,or from cycling pace up to urban road speed.
That will help commuters and leisure travel,and might ease road congestion in these parts if the train can be viewed as a viable alternative to the car for travel to/from work or vacations

Starmill · 10 Apr 2020

hooverboy said:
it isn't just free money-as bond investors are seeking a return.

hooverboy said:
They just issue a shed load more government bonds,
of course, the takers of those bonds are also looking for return on investment(or security)

In general, the buyers of government bonds are not people looking for the best returns. They're people looking for safety for their money.

The graph with the yeilds above of UK 10 Year Gilts show that they were already low and have recently fallen further. We're looking at 0.3% on the market and 0.1% from the Bank of England. As the graph shows, in March, the Treasury sold bonds which will make them a return, because bond yields were negative. To put it another way, the investors who bought them paid to have the Treasury keep their cash.

hooverboy · 10 Apr 2020

Starmill said:
In general, the buyers of government bonds are not people looking for the best returns. They're people looking for safety for their money.
View attachment 76336
The graph with the yeilds above of UK 10 Year Gilts show that they were already low and have recently fallen further. We're looking at 0.3% on the market and 0.1% from the Bank of England. As the graph shows, in March, the Treasury sold bonds which will make them a return, because bond yields were negative. To put it another way, the investors who bought them paid to have the Treasury keep their cash.

sure, "safe" bonds command a much higher price premium in the market.

The Ham · 10 Apr 2020

hooverboy said:
there is nothing at all wrong in trying to figure out what will give the best return on investment.
£100 billion is still a lot of money even if over 20 years.
, £5bn a year is a lot of money too.

as for the money not existing,the central banks are very capable of turning on the credit spigots very quickly,just as we've seen from BoE and the treasury of late.
They just issue a shed load more government bonds,
of course, the takers of those bonds are also looking for return on investment(or security)

once the issuance has been made,government departments get the money to spend and that filters down to subcontractors,and then society in general through the form of payout,payrolls,infrastructure and services.

The point I am trying to make is these funds have to be used efficiently, it isn't just free money-as bond investors are seeking a return.
Every invstment needs to be viewed as "working capital",or collateral.
we are actually fairly fortunate in this country that it is generally seen as quite a low risk investment financially,meaning we will honour and repay our debts.There are others around like argentina for instance,where the risk is so high that speculators insist on obscenely high interest rates as danger money to cover the risk of default.

just throwing around the extra couple of billion here or there because "it's pocket change" is a surefire way to put off a potential buyer doing their due diligence.

The few billion saved through a descoping,needs to be applied to other areas,such as upgrades of other areas that presently have either chronic bottlenecks, or chronically long journey times that need reducing.
It's also a time to invest in machinery that enables these projects to be undertaken and completed faster.

we've got to think functional now, not flashy.
for the saving on HS2 descoping,even at 10% or £500m a year,you can provide probably 10 other meaningful upgrades on other parts of the network, which is much more beneficial to the country as a whole.
ie earthworks and trackwork/signalling to raise speed limits in some areas from walking pace up to cycling pace,or from cycling pace up to urban road speed.
That will help commuters and leisure travel,and might ease road congestion in these parts if the train can be viewed as a viable alternative to the car for travel to/from work or vacations

As long as the rail project is viable due to generating enough money or saving enough, then it's worth borrowing the money to build it. If it's not then it's never going to get built, regardless of how much money is cut from HS2.

Belperpete · 10 Apr 2020

Meole said:
The economic recovery requires investment in infrastructure to provide employment, more projects will be required not less.

Exactly. Is the government really going to cancel an infrastructure project that is already well under way, wasting the millions of pounds that have already been spent and more importantly adding yet more thousands of people to the numbers made unemployed as a result of this crisis.

As has already been pointed out, people need to stop confusing investment (such as HS2) and operating costs (such as NHS running costs). You can get a mortgage to buy a house, you can't get a mortgage to buy your weekly shopping.

Class 170101 · 10 Apr 2020

JonathanH said:
The idea that you can take money for recovery from lower earners is absolutely not on. They are the ones who have either contributed to the response as key workers or been furloughed. If anything they need a further increase in their income to spend more in the economy.

Removing the triple lock on pensions is an obvious step and perhaps looking to take more tax from 'affluent' pensioners.

I am afraid it is middle and higher income people, especially those who have continued working and been at home who need to be 'taxed to the hilt' as a result of this crisis, perhaps through a one-off wealth tax in addition to increases in income tax.

I would see the solution to some our tax problems to be rather than a tax on profits which those big businesses seek to avoid by being off shore or in lower tax jurisdictions (eg Ireland) is to have a tax on where the sale was from. So a UK resident buys x product from Amazon but that company's tax status becomes irrelavent. The 'sale' tax (and NOT VAT) on the sale is paid (say 5%) and is irrelavant of deductions for costs and other 'fiddles' accountants come up with.

I wouldn't touch the triple lock on pensions not for political reasons but for health and social reasons, the same with the free bus pass as it means pensioners hopefully go out and socialise and don't sit at home leading to social isolation and potentially other health problems, costing the NHS and councils money for care services.

S-Bahn · 10 Apr 2020

A few days ago the government did a major bond issue with a negative yield (as Starmill said, investors are willing to pay the government to hang on to their money.)

Demand for the bonds was three times higher that expected.

There is no shortage of wealth funds/investors willing to hand their money over to the government to re-invest in infrastructure projects.

The government's borrowing costs are falling and there is no better time for them to commit to infrastructure projects.

RealTrains07 · 11 Apr 2020

Funnily enough this man is my MP

It will cost more money for HS2 to be cancelled now surely than for HS2 is go ahead and with the money already spent on the project and the money that will have to be spent to cancel it?

Best to just get on with the project once the lockdown is over I would say

corfield · 11 Apr 2020

Belperpete said:
You can get a mortgage to buy a house, you can't get a mortgage to buy your weekly shopping.

Of course you can. As many people do ranging from payday loans to releasing equity form property with a new mortgage, and using that on things that do not generate financial return eg holiday and shopping.

The problem HS2 faces is that its daily costs need to be paid now, a return is a long way off. Plus much of that return is abstraction from the lines its services will replace.

Afterall the working-from-home meme hits rail traffic too. (actually we are finding it rubbish - low productivity and everyone cant wait to go back to normal).

Whilst in theory HS2 is borrowed cheaply and is paid back vs NHS costs that are ongoing - the borrowing isn’t specifically tied to HS2 and the Govt has gone through the roof on borrowing. At that point servicing the borrowing now, whilst still paying today’s costs, is the problem.

That is why it could get cancelled, or suspeneded/delayed.

To go back to the mortgage analogy, it doesnt matter how much the property will generate in letting or capital appreciation - you have already maxxed your borrowing and ability to pay the mortgage until that income arrives.

Starmill · 11 Apr 2020

corfield said:
actually we are finding it rubbish - low productivity and everyone cant wait to go back to normal

I could hardly agree more. Although those with a separate room within their property which sees dedicated use as a home office, where they can go to avoid being interrupted or the distractions of the day will no doubt be feeling better than those of us whose only option is to work from our bedrooms.

Starmill · 11 Apr 2020

corfield said:
At that point servicing the borrowing now, whilst still paying today’s costs, is the problem.

Indeed this is a serious issue. Because of David Cameron and George Osborne's appalling mismanagement, we've been struggling with weak growth and very poor tax revenues, while also having to put up with the massive pile of outstanding debt which they left us with. It would have been OK to have taken out this much borrowing if it has been used to set us right for the next downturn. Sadly that's not what happened, so now we'll have not one but two recessions worth of debt to service when we're out the other side. The debt to GDP ratio we end up with on the other side of this could be uncomfortable indeed. In this moment, though, there is little choice.

The Ham · 11 Apr 2020

Starmill said:
Indeed this is a serious issue. Because of David Cameron and George Osborne's appalling mismanagement, we've been struggling with weak growth and very poor tax revenues, while also having to put up with the massive pile of outstanding debt which they left us with. It would have been OK to have taken out this much borrowing if it has been used to set us right for the next downturn. Sadly that's not what happened, so now we'll have not one but two recessions worth of debt to service when we're out the other side. The debt to GDP ratio we end up with on the other side of this could be uncomfortable indeed. In this moment, though, there is little choice.

It could be argued that there should have been more of the debt paid back between the recession before the financial crash of 2008/09 and that crash.

corfield · 11 Apr 2020

Quite, but no government in the modern world can survive if it pays debts off instead of spending on the NHS, tax reductions or a million forms of “investment” (a word so qrotesquely misused it needs to be retired!), including railway lines that primarily replace existing ones, albeit with much extra capacity (and assumption of ever increasing patronage) - and in a world where travel may be reducing.

I cant help but note that the tone towards the railways is “predict and provide” vs the roads is “throttle them”, itself a complete reversion of how roads were treated.

Starmill · 11 Apr 2020

The Ham said:
It could be argued that there should have been more of the debt paid back between the recession before the financial crash of 2008/09 and that crash.

The recession was in 2009?

Adam Williams · 11 Apr 2020

hooverboy said:
rather than blanket increase tax national insurance etc, we need to be streamlining the whole process(es) of government so it is much simpler to administer(and enforce)

Agree with this. Things are complex at present, the entire system could do with being simplified.

hooverboy said:
1)a flat tax of 30% or so,with one set threshhold(lets say £15k,could even be 20K), replaces present income tax and national insurance-but now no upper limit on contributions (NI contributions do have a ceiling presently)

Wouldn't argue with this, I don't see the point behind the current NI and income tax separation. The only category of people who I think this would be detrimental to are pensioners (who typically would only pay income tax).

hooverboy said:
2)PROPER enforcement of tax avoidance/lessening measures,and scaling back of loopholes(sorry google and IR35)

I do think it's worth making a distinction between very large corporations using contrived arrangements to route company profits through tax havens, and individual genuine freelancers working for multiple clients.

One of my contracts is caught inside IR35 and I pay more in various taxes and fees than my permanent colleagues do. And no, I'm not being paid double the amount they are or anything daft like that. I understand the aims here with IR35 to stop people taking the piss ('Friday to Monday' cases!) and I can agree with those aims, but in cases where contractors/freelancers are genuinely self-employed and do work for multiple clients it's worth noting that they already give up the holiday, sick pay, pension, medical insurance, job security and other benefits that you'd expect to get as an employee. I don't think letting them run their business operations as a business should be particularly controversial.

I do honestly believe that businesses having access to flexible and/or temporary resource is a good thing - further sweeping tax changes here are likely to cause disruption exactly as they have already in the public sector and harm the smallest companies at the same time. It's very telling that these changes were delayed for private sector contracts last month.

S-Bahn · 11 Apr 2020

The Ham said:
It could be argued that there should have been more of the debt paid back between the recession before the financial crash of 2008/09 and that crash.

That would involve a government collecting more taxes more that it spends, which means the government running a tax surplus.

When a government runs a surplus it is taking money out of the economy and reducing aggregate demand.

In a country total expenditure = total income. Therefore if the GOV reduces aggregate demand, total expenditure and total income fall, meaning a recession as GDP shrinks.

This is why government surpluses are not the same as an individual trying to balance their household finances (see paradox of thrift).

Starmill · 12 Apr 2020

A slight surplus of 0.5% to 1% of GDP is very unlikely to be counter-productive if it means a quick reduction in the debt to GDP ratio. It was the aim of the German government in the past. Total pipe dream in the UK though. People here seem to think they're entitled to good government services without ever having to pay a penny more in tax than they did last year.

petegunstone · 12 Apr 2020

Is it possible that there could be such a significant change in our travel habits, following the Covid-19 lockdown, that demand ceases to justify any aspect of HS2?

Bletchleyite · 12 Apr 2020

petegunstone said:
Is it possible that there could be such a significant change in our travel habits, following the Covid-19 lockdown, that demand ceases to justify any aspect of HS2?

That remains to be seen. It's vaguely possible, but it would require a proper long-term downturn in south WCML commuting - remember HS2 is not just for Christmas, it's for the next 100+ years.

Stone's Conservative MP Sir Bill Cash wants HS2 to be cancelled to benefit the Health service

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Member

Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member