Cycling Forums UK : www.veloriders.co.uk :: View topic - Should we have a seperate area for EUG discussions?

Home FAQ Register Usergroups Search Memberlist Gallery StatisticsForum Sponsors •  Photo RequestProfile • Links Log in to check your private messagesLog inBC Eastmidlands

Should we have a seperate area for EUG discussions?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Cycling Forums UK : www.veloriders.co.uk Forum Index -> Polls
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Seperate area for EUG nonsense?
Yes please
72%
 72%  [ 21 ]
Go on then!
3%
 3%  [ 1 ]
Good idea Tucker
24%
 24%  [ 7 ]
Total Votes : 29

Author Message
ldncycle
Elite Poster
Elite Poster


Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 229

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brian Cookson wrote:
There you go again Michael, conveneniently only presenting partial information and ignoring things which don't fit your view. Why don't you tell people what was actually said about this issue at the meeting? As a reminder here's a clip from the BC website;

However it was made clear that this did not restrict the road circuit to the layout shown on the outline proposals, nor did it preclude land outside the immediate Velo Park being made available for competition off-road use at selected times. In fact some further appraisals had been undertaken of these issues, including the possibility of using more land to create a longer (2kms or more) road circuit, and it was also clear that an off road circuit of some 5 kms in length could be incorporated within the Olympic Park open areas adjacent to the Velo Park to host competition events at selected times of the year. Feasibility work also continues to increase BMX provision and to introduce Cycle Speedway facilities in the final Velo Park. All these matters would be taken forward as part of the next stage in the process.

Oh and read ajay and other posts above, for a view of how many independent-minded people see your tactics. Have you noticed how those kind of comments are increasing? Will you learn from them? Somehow I doubt it.

Brian.


There we go again presenting partial iformation - indeed!

So, you've accepted the size of the velopark Brian? What happened to BC's opposition to the velo plans?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brian Cookson
E, Silver


Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 883
Location: Whalley, Lancashire

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Doesn't say that at all John. All my posts say in effect that we're continuing to work with the ODA, LVRPA and others to make sure we get the best possible outcome. This is an uncertain world, we all know that. But after the Olympics, London will have a far better range of facilites for all branches of cycle sport than it did before. Have a look at the other independent-minded posters on here, they can understand that, and they can see that the EUG's aggressively confrontational stance is counter-productive. I think you should bring more influence to bear on this organisation, you seem a rational sort of person.

Brian.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MH
E, Bronze


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 479

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What's an EUG?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ldncycle
Elite Poster
Elite Poster


Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 229

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Independent - as in they agree with you?
aggresively confrontational - as in they question, hold people accountable and continue to campaign for a FULL return of the Olympic discplines to the Eastway legacy? Again, that really is in the eye of the beholder.

Seems like you have accepted the reduced 7 ha site - no mention is made at all in the meeting account that you gave of this being unacceptable, rather that work arounds are being found that can probably be ignored later on.
What asurances can you give that the road circuit is going to remain a road circuit?
When did BC know about the reduced velopark plan?

These are all really important questions that need answering and if you have nothing to hide and can discuss these things why do you not want to meet Michael and EUG? You can't keep sayting that he will be able to twist the argument to win if the argument cannot be made in the first place. If you truly feel you are right then your position can hold up to scrutiny.

Also, just a reminder that the EUG doesn't need to be your enemy Brian, you could actually use the gains they can make.
Its a real shame you have taken such a personal dislike to Plurien and the message he carries.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Adam
Div 1 Pro


Joined: 22 Jan 2004
Posts: 7258
Location: London

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ldncycle wrote:
Independent - as in they agree with you?
aggresively confrontational - as in they question, hold people accountable and continue to campaign for a FULL return of the Olympic discplines to the Eastway legacy? Again, that really is in the eye of the beholder.

Seems like you have accepted the reduced 7 ha site - no mention is made at all in the meeting account that you gave of this being unacceptable, rather that work arounds are being found that can probably be ignored later on.
What asurances can you give that the road circuit is going to remain a road circuit?
When did BC know about the reduced velopark plan?

These are all really important questions that need answering and if you have nothing to hide and can discuss these things why do you not want to meet Michael and EUG? You can't keep sayting that he will be able to twist the argument to win if the argument cannot be made in the first place. If you truly feel you are right then your position can hold up to scrutiny.

Also, just a reminder that the EUG doesn't need to be your enemy Brian, you could actually use the gains they can make.
Its a real shame you have taken such a personal dislike to Plurien and the message he carries.


Bit hypocritical, don't you think?

From an outsiders point of view, it appears the good of Eastway users has taken a backseat and it's simply EUG vs BC. Give it a rest. I'm all for a seperate forum.
_________________
http://fusion-media.co.uk

http://twitter.com/adamtranter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
stanno
Cat 2 Groupie
Cat 2 Groupie


Joined: 21 Mar 2007
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brian. One question - when did you realise that the permanent legacy site for cycling would be limited to 7 hectares (more like 2 hectares if you remove the velodrome)?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ldncycle
Elite Poster
Elite Poster


Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 229

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nope, the ODA are the main decision makers here. There is no doubt about that, BC is pretty much ancilliary and its my perspective that they are getting rather used by the ODA machine.
But BC has to be accountable for its actions, as does the ODA.

And hypocritical? Nope. As in the reference to in the eye of the beholder.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KJ
T de F Winner


Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 26400

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ldncycle wrote:
Independent - as in they agree with you?
aggresively confrontational - as in they question, hold people accountable and continue to campaign for a FULL return of the Olympic discplines to the Eastway legacy? Again, that really is in the eye of the beholder.

Seems like you have accepted the reduced 7 ha site - no mention is made at all in the meeting account that you gave of this being unacceptable, rather that work arounds are being found that can probably be ignored later on.
What asurances can you give that the road circuit is going to remain a road circuit?
When did BC know about the reduced velopark plan?

These are all really important questions that need answering and if you have nothing to hide and can discuss these things why do you not want to meet Michael and EUG? You can't keep sayting that he will be able to twist the argument to win if the argument cannot be made in the first place. If you truly feel you are right then your position can hold up to scrutiny.

Also, just a reminder that the EUG doesn't need to be your enemy Brian, you could actually use the gains they can make.
Its a real shame you have taken such a personal dislike to Plurien and the message he carries.


I'm sorry. If there are any sycophants it's the supporters of the EUG who are like little parrots repeating the same mantra over and over.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Brian Cookson
E, Silver


Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 883
Location: Whalley, Lancashire

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stanno - I answered that on the other thread a day or so ago.

John/ldncycle - I think you know very well (if you don't, you should) that there have been numerous attempts to work with EUG in the person of your chairman, including a meeting last week between him, our Chief Executive and our legal adviser. As always, it proved impossible to hold any sort of meaningful discussion with him since his approach is that before there is any collaboration BC must agree total unequivocal support for the MH/EUG position and approach. We can't and we won't.

As for personal dislike, I have no reason to personally like or dislike Michael. I think I've only met him twice, once when I came down to visit Eastway, Rammey Marsh and Hog Hill, and the second time at the meeting last week. Frankly I've been very surprised at the EUG's confrontational tactics, the allegations and smears and the general approach to this whole matter. Michael/Plurien seems to relish this sort of thing and seems to think it is an effective way of getting what he/you/EUG want. I beg to differ.

So, you'll have to forgive me for having a little antipathy and suspicion towards a man who seems to have spent a good deal of his time and effort over the last few months, not just trying to get a good range of cycling facilities, but doing that by trying to undermine the reputation of the organisation that many, many people have put many, many years into building up.

I'm not going to apologise for defending the reputation of that organisation or those people. In fact I reckon it's part of my job as President.

Brian.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ingatestonian
Cat 1 Groupie
Cat 1 Groupie


Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brian Cookson wrote:
It is clearly understood by ODA, LVRPA and others, that there were weekly MTB events during the summer at Eastway, plus other occasional use for cyclo-cross, etc. It is the objective of BC and the aspiration of the people who are likely to manage the park that this level of frequency will return. As none of the management arrangements have been finalised and won't be for some time, no-one can guarantee that at this stage.

Meanwhile, there will be competition standard MTB circuits on an attractive greenfield site at Hog Hill and likely further use of the Olympic MTB facility at Weald Country Park as well.


This is all positive stuff, but there has to be recognition of the competing pressures over use of general public open space, like parks. Taking it regularly for any kind of 'exclusive' use is normally fraught.

Of course, this doesn't apply to Hog Hill - that's intended to be dedicated cycling space, like Eastway (practically) was, and like the Velopark is intended to be.

As an example, look at Lysterfield Park. Lysterfield Park was used for the mountain biking in the Melbourne Commonwealth Games last year, had lots of money spent on it, and was designated the 'State Mountain Bike Course'.

Yet despite the grand sounding title, it has been decreed that no more than six off-road races can be held there in any one year.

OK, so that's probably the most there's likely to be at most venues (although Eastway had ten or eleven mountain bike races, and several cyclocross each year). It's just a pretty pathetic share of a venue that was designated a permanent off-road race facility.

Therefore I've got concerns about what's achievable in the Olympic Park and at Weald Park. There's already a pressure-group organising to keep mountain bikes out of Weald Park - I believe they'd been in touch with BCHQ already - so don't imagine cyclists are the only ones with something to say on this. The 'dog walking fraternity' will fight back. Sad

But still, an appreciation of these issues up-front does make it much more likely that a positive accommodation can be agreed by all parties.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tucker
Tour Winner


Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 15722
Location: Swindon

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Des wrote:
Well as I'm not part of the EUG do I still fall under your homophobic description?


Sadly yes - by EUG regular I meant regular poster - I should have thought that was obvious!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Plurien
E, Silver


Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 1966

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

'Positive accommodation' could easily be achieved on all sides. Far more easily if the NGB were to make known its opposition to the planning application. At the moment the ODA can point to 'support' and keep on with its plans.
The legal case to which Brian alludes - the reason I was asked along to the meeting was so that BC could learn about the EUG case. For BC to be in support of the EUG was said to be 'putting the cart before the horse'. I'd also remind Brian of BCs statement to CW which said it wouldn't meet with EUG. Brain's repeated this again. - Why does a governing body refuse to meet with its members and in my case, active race organisers?

The CEO of the ODA was had-up before the London Assembly where he said the 34ha is still available. He said there would be a consultation - his exact word - with the users on the 3rd of May. The convenor of the meeting promptly said at my request that the meeting was NOT a consultation. There were no minutes taken and we're still waiting for 'notes' from the first meeting. Someone had told his boss and Lord Coe, and Pat McQuaid and the Mayor and others that the meeting would be a meaningful episode in the consultation. It wasn't.
This isn't acceptable behaviour by a publicly-accountable body and should not be endorsed by the NGB.
BC won't say when it first knew of the reduction in the velopark, so it obviously won't say when it agreed with the reduction down to 7ha. It has resolved to 'play along' or 'negotiate' or 'be reasonable' with a party that needs the credibility it has bestowed on plans which are unacceptable and which should be opposed. Has that party given BC reason to 'play along'? If so, what is the reason, since it's obviously not to do with the way it's looked after the interests of cycle sport and riders as foreseen in the planning conditions or covenant.
So yes, absolutely I would wholeheartedly approve of a move for BC to reflect the wishes of its membership and then to see if it can make common cause with other bodies which want a full replacement in legacy. Any other course of action simply supports the plans of the ODA which are not acceptable.

BTW GG; the drawback with MTB SC is you can't fit 200+ riders on a course for a whole hour of racing like Beastway did for 13 years.

Brian. You've been to London twice since this started in 2003. What about a third trip, since this is a bit important. Meet a few 'old friends' and lots of new ones who are a little concerned about their legacy and the way you could be doing quite a bit more to help them. We know the facility you have planned with the ODA is of 'great benefit to British Cycling'. It's just we're having trouble knowing how you know what riders want since you haven't really been to meet with them since Rammey Marsh.
Peter came, found out what riders want, went away and your board meeting didn't decide anything. The meeting I went to at your lawyers - whom you now acknowledge is athletes1.co.uk - showed me you still can't decide what to do: Oppose or go along with the ODA. Obviously I would like to help you decide to oppose.
You didn't get the case because it's not mine to give you and because you won't do what this forum and lots of other people have indicated would be the sensible thing to do. On the case you've got, I'm not surprised you can't make your minds up to oppose. If you want the EUGs case so badly as to go against your public statements, why not come to meet with EUG and we can collectively decide, there and then whether we would help. It probably wouldn't come from any organisation without conditions though, would it, so it's not reasonable to imply that EUG or I am being unreasonable. Whatever, a meeting would be the proper way to resolve it.

It's MTB XC which riders want back on Eastway, in Inner East London. They want a proper road circuit and a place with a secure perimeter.
The best way to secure both? - Get the land area they need and then debate the layout. 7ha ain't big enough, but that's not what the ODA and its partners would have you believe. After all, they may want that land for something else entirely and never mind what the committed to before they got it. You're helping them take that land, whether you can see that or not.
Come and meet with EUG so we can discuss the case and how you could decide on it. You must realise by now this issue is getting away from your partners at the ODA.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brian Cookson
E, Silver


Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 883
Location: Whalley, Lancashire

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BC has not said to Cycling Weekly that we will not meet with EUG. That may be what they reported, as part of an item that said that you were going to meet with Seb Coe, (who incidentally until I pointed out your folly you were referring to as Sir Lord Coe - rather foolish to take the mickey out of someone you hope to influence don't you think?), when in fact as I understand it Seb Coe has refused to meet you, which leads one to wonder who gave them that information.

All this is typical of your approach to the matter, I'm afraid.

Brian.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Plurien
E, Silver


Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 1966

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Got any more lacunae or are you just avoiding the questions?
Happy to be corrected on the CW items. It was quite funny to be told that Coe would meet with me, when it turns out he wouldn't and that BC wouldn't meet with me, when Peter called me.
Mind you, I did learn that Lord Sir Sebastian Coe was under the impressiont that the meeting was a consultation. - Were you under the impression too?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ingatestonian
Cat 1 Groupie
Cat 1 Groupie


Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plurien wrote:
Got any more lacunae or are you just avoiding the questions?
Happy to be corrected on the CW items. It was quite funny to be told that Coe would meet with me, when it turns out he wouldn't and that BC wouldn't meet with me, when Peter called me.
Mind you, I did learn that Lord Sir Sebastian Coe was under the impression that the meeting was a consultation. - Were you under the impression too?


Lacunae..? 'Gaps' is a very non-specific term to use here - I can only assume you're referring to lacunar amnesia - having a blind spot for certain items.

Also, if we're being 'proper' it's either Lord Coe KBE or Sir Sebastian Coe. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brian Cookson
E, Silver


Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 883
Location: Whalley, Lancashire

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry Michael, I've got bored with dealing with your nonsense now. I've made my position and BC's position clear. I don't need any moral or ethical lectures from you.

Brian.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Plurien
E, Silver


Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 1966

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So you make light of the riders' wish to have a facility which is equal to or an improvement on Eastway, only to be sadly deceived by the planners and the cycle discipline partners about what they would return to?
- When did BC know the velopark was not going to happen in the way the Assembly and others had been told? The way the planning conditions intended.
Is it boring to be told you seem to be a lot more supportive of the developer's needs than the riders? Is boredom your only reason for not answering? Please tell.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Trevor Reade
E, Gold


Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 2573
Location: Haverhill and Chelmsford

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael - I don't really have the time or the inclination to follow all of the twisting and turning on these threads so could you confirm my understanding is broadly correct. I don't want half a page of blurb, just a simple yes or no please.

1 - Eastway will get a world class velodrome in the next four years or so
2 - Eastway will get a competition standard BMX track
3 - Eastway may get a cycle speedway track

None of the above were available on the site in the period prior to closure.

4 - There is a temporary venue being made available at Hog Hill (newts permitting) which will be at least as good as Eastway - although in a different location.
5 - The Hog Hill site may be available for use after the Games subject to funding.
6 - There will be a road circuit of some sort on the Games Park after 2012
_________________
Looking over my shoulder...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ingatestonian
Cat 1 Groupie
Cat 1 Groupie


Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trevor Reade wrote:
1 - Eastway will get a world class velodrome in the next four years or so
2 - Eastway will get a competition standard BMX track
3 - Eastway may get a cycle speedway track
4 - There is a temporary venue being made available at Hog Hill (newts permitting) which will be at least as good as Eastway - although in a different location.
5 - The Hog Hill site may be available for use after the Games subject to funding.
6 - There will be a road circuit of some sort on the Games Park after 2012


If I may?

  1. Yes
  2. Yes
  3. No (nothing more than a pipe-dream at the moment)
  4. Yes (assuming 'as good' is measured by quality of facility)
  5. Yes
  6. Yes

Although of course this doesn't tell the whole story:

  1. Will there be a competition-standard BMX track in 2012?
  2. Is Hog Hill too far away for many Eastway users?
  3. Can a good source of funding for Hog Hill be found?
  4. Will the new Eastway road circuit be any good?
  5. Overall, are road cyclists and mountain bikers in east London going to be better off?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KJ
T de F Winner


Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 26400

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plurien wrote:
'Positive accommodation' could easily be achieved on all sides. Far more easily if the NGB were to make known its opposition to the planning application. At the moment the ODA can point to 'support' and keep on with its plans.
The legal case to which Brian alludes - the reason I was asked along to the meeting was so that BC could learn about the EUG case. For BC to be in support of the EUG was said to be 'putting the cart before the horse'. I'd also remind Brian of BCs statement to CW which said it wouldn't meet with EUG. Brain's repeated this again. - Why does a governing body refuse to meet with its members and in my case, active race organisers?

The CEO of the ODA was had-up before the London Assembly where he said the 34ha is still available. He said there would be a consultation - his exact word - with the users on the 3rd of May. The convenor of the meeting promptly said at my request that the meeting was NOT a consultation. There were no minutes taken and we're still waiting for 'notes' from the first meeting. Someone had told his boss and Lord Coe, and Pat McQuaid and the Mayor and others that the meeting would be a meaningful episode in the consultation. It wasn't.
This isn't acceptable behaviour by a publicly-accountable body and should not be endorsed by the NGB.
BC won't say when it first knew of the reduction in the velopark, so it obviously won't say when it agreed with the reduction down to 7ha. It has resolved to 'play along' or 'negotiate' or 'be reasonable' with a party that needs the credibility it has bestowed on plans which are unacceptable and which should be opposed. Has that party given BC reason to 'play along'? If so, what is the reason, since it's obviously not to do with the way it's looked after the interests of cycle sport and riders as foreseen in the planning conditions or covenant.
So yes, absolutely I would wholeheartedly approve of a move for BC to reflect the wishes of its membership and then to see if it can make common cause with other bodies which want a full replacement in legacy. Any other course of action simply supports the plans of the ODA which are not acceptable.

BTW GG; the drawback with MTB SC is you can't fit 200+ riders on a course for a whole hour of racing like Beastway did for 13 years.

Brian. You've been to London twice since this started in 2003. What about a third trip, since this is a bit important. Meet a few 'old friends' and lots of new ones who are a little concerned about their legacy and the way you could be doing quite a bit more to help them. We know the facility you have planned with the ODA is of 'great benefit to British Cycling'. It's just we're having trouble knowing how you know what riders want since you haven't really been to meet with them since Rammey Marsh.
Peter came, found out what riders want, went away and your board meeting didn't decide anything. The meeting I went to at your lawyers - whom you now acknowledge is athletes1.co.uk - showed me you still can't decide what to do: Oppose or go along with the ODA. Obviously I would like to help you decide to oppose.
You didn't get the case because it's not mine to give you and because you won't do what this forum and lots of other people have indicated would be the sensible thing to do. On the case you've got, I'm not surprised you can't make your minds up to oppose. If you want the EUGs case so badly as to go against your public statements, why not come to meet with EUG and we can collectively decide, there and then whether we would help. It probably wouldn't come from any organisation without conditions though, would it, so it's not reasonable to imply that EUG or I am being unreasonable. Whatever, a meeting would be the proper way to resolve it.

It's MTB XC which riders want back on Eastway, in Inner East London. They want a proper road circuit and a place with a secure perimeter.
The best way to secure both? - Get the land area they need and then debate the layout. 7ha ain't big enough, but that's not what the ODA and its partners would have you believe. After all, they may want that land for something else entirely and never mind what the committed to before they got it. You're helping them take that land, whether you can see that or not.
Come and meet with EUG so we can discuss the case and how you could decide on it. You must realise by now this issue is getting away from your partners at the ODA.


This forum has not indicated any such thing! Only a few posters, mostly the same posters as on london cycle sport, agree with even half what you post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Cycling Forums UK : www.veloriders.co.uk Forum Index -> Polls All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Important Notice: VeloRiders copyrights all images appearing on this website and in the Gallery. Images are displayed for viewing only, and commercial or personal use of any of these images without the written permission of VeloRiders is prohibited under international copyright law. Copyright 2002/2013 VeloRiders. All rights reserved.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

E-mail VeloRiders. Comments, questions or send your photos to , Order your photos@

RSS News Feed
aegishosting